Transit & Streets:
- A major repaving project on Denny Way will kick off early this year (SDOT Blog). Sign up for tomorrow’s virtual open house here (6:00 – 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, January 15, 2025).
- Last Friday, transit operators from around the PNW mourned Shawn Yim (Metro Matters). An STB article on public safety and transit is in the works.
- In a reversal of Inslee-era climate priorities, Ferguson may delay converting ferries to electric power (The Seattle Times, $). In 2024, the ferry system recorded 19.1 million boardings, up 2.6% from 2023 (WSDOT Blog). In other climate news, Washington is a hotbed for carbon capture research (The Seattle Times, $).
- King County Metro is adding 120 Tesla Model Ys to its vanpool fleet (Mass Transit Magazine).
- Governer-elect Bob Ferguson has named Julie Meredith, manager of WSDOT construction megaprojects like the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement and SR-520 floating bridge rebuild to be Transportation Secretary (aka head of WSDOT) (Washington State Standard).
- Heavy construction on the Route 40 TPMC project to begin this year (SDOT Blog)
- Sound Transit has started construction of a second elevator at the SeaTac station skybridge (The Platform)
- Sound Transit wants your input on the At-Grade Crossing Program Draft Master Plan, the Graham Street Station project, and the Boeing Access Road Station project (The Platform).
- The NE 130th Street Station will be officially named on Thursday; “Pinehurst Station” is the leading contender (Sound Transit).
Land Use & Housing:
- A review of zoning reforms enacted across the USA in 2024 (Planetizen).
- At the top of WA Democrats’ housing agenda is House Bill 1217, which would cap annual rent increases at 7% and prohibit landlords from raising rent a tenant’s first year (The Urbanist). A number of other housing priorities are on the docket as well. Also covered by Cascade PBS.
Commentary & Miscellaneous:
- Anna Zivarts opines: Washington State Should Allow Riders to Serve on Transit Boards (The Urbanist)
- Alon Levy muses on how train station design impacts user experience (Pedestrian Observations)
- Starbucks is reversing its open-door door policy (The Seattle Times, $).
- An interview with Cameron Booth, who is cataloging Portland’s streetcar history (Oregon Public Broadcasting)
This is an Open Thread.
Also:
Nadia Anderson joins Sound Transit as Chief Strategy Officer
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/nadia-anderson-joins-sound-transit-chief-strategy-officer
“ Nadia Anderson, Ph.D., has joined the agency today as Chief Strategy Officer, a new position created to guide the agency’s approach to the technological, environmental, and economic future of the region. Anderson joins at a time of growing momentum for the agency”
This must have posted after I drafted the post. Thanks for sharing!
So automated trains and open gangways will be under her purview. We should suggest she get ST to study them.
Sounds like it. They’d definitely come under “Innovation and Transformation”, and ST is in need of a good helping of both.
No more 55 mph low-floor “interurbans” to East Redneck.
@Mike Orr,
ST isn’t going to change their vehicle tech. That train left the station decades ago.
Automation will come to Link someday, but it will come more in the form of self operating vehicles like what Waymo uses, and not in the older tech form that Skytrain uses.
“ST isn’t going to change their vehicle tech. ”
We can’t give up prematurely. It’s not over until the fat lady sings.
It starts with asking Anderson to study these things, identifying them as part of the “technological future” (which they are; they’re now the current industry standard), and letting them know part of the public is watching ST over that and holding it accountable to give it the consideration it deserves. Anderson is a new person, so she may be more open to it, and this is a new position, to prepare ST for the future better than it has been doing. This is part of it.
If ST does it, that doesn’t mean it’s committing to any particular new technology now. No boardmember has to panic about being called on to vote on a measure to switch technologies tomorrow. This is about getting ST to explore the possibilities and give them a fair evaluation. Then after the results come back, we can argue about whether to adopt this or that technology for this or that project.
If we ask, then Anderson may or may not do this evaluation and pass the results to the board. If she does, then the rest of the staff might or might not consider whether to apply those strategies to various projects. Then there might or might not be board measures to institute them. Then after that would come a board vote to commit to one of them on a project. That’s the only time boardmembers might panic.
There are several state-of-the-art automated technologies that could be considered, not just the SkyTrain system. There’s Honolulu’s new metro, and lines in Europe that Martin knows more about than I do.
Open gangways doesn’t even require switching technologies. Open gangways are compatible with the existing driving system. The end cabs that are actually used could remain the same. It’s just the unused cabs in the middle that would go away. That’s not switching technologies. ST’s stated reason for not having open gangways is that it makes every car interchangeable for maintenance convenience. With open gangways, different kinds of cars would be treated differently, and it would be more desirable to keep the whole trainset in one piece and rotate it into/out of maintenance together rather than just one car. So it’s a relatively minor convenience issue, and ST might be willing to change its mind someday on it, and we can tell ST that public sentiment is for this. The advantages of open gangways is it gives 20% more capacity — a good thing when Link is dealing with actual current and potential future overcrowding. If ST had ordered open gangway trains for ST2 as we’d suggested, it would have that additional capacity now for free. Now it could only do it with new orders, or spend money to replace the existing trains. Still, it makes sense to establish it as a long-term strategy, and look to replace the existing trains at the earliest economic opportunity. There’s also a passenger-safety issue: open gangways allow passengers to move to another car if somebody is being obnoxious in their car, and gives passengers a greater feeling of safety.
ST isn’t going to change their vehicle tech. That train left the station decades ago.
Sadly I fear you are right. The trains are crowded and they could replace the train cars with more capacious ones but they aren’t interested. Open gangways would not only add capacity but allow people to find the car with the most room. Again, ST isn’t interested.
No one is suggesting we automate the old train lines. But if you are building a brand new subway line (and they are) then it should certainly be automated. That is just standard practice now. But again, ST has their own way way of doing things. Even if it is clearly wrong, you can’t expect them to change any time soon.
Lazarus, I can’t remember anybody specifically advocating “Skytrain tech” for the specific automation protocol. As Mike pointed out, there are several alternative systems. This is just more of you fan-boi defense of the “ST can do no wrong” church you belong to. In actual fact, the only “right things” they’ve done is North Link and Rainier Valley Link, but they should have done them with different technologies.
Yes East Link ought to be a smashing success. Connecting three big urban centers is bound to attract lots of ridership. However, the bridge is going to be a constant headache — at best — and that will significantly lower the overall use and usefulness of the project.
Ross, I’d be for “automating the old train line” from CID north, if for no other reason than to improve the throughput of the system in concert with platform doors.
Maybe the driver rides along all the way to Lynnwood; maybe the driver boards and alights at Symphony but doesn’t “drive” between CID and the turn-around location. Obviously, boarding and alighting lowers the total labor cost of the system, but maybe folks like knowing that someone is on board for emergencies.
What we’ve specifically suggested is to automate the Ballard line, which isn’t built or designed yet. It could either terminate at Westlake (everybody transfers), continue southeast to First Hill, or continue south to West Seattle (replacing DSTT2). We can leave the existing lines and their extensions as is until later.
Alas. Another senior hire that has never overseen a big city transit operation. And this one appears new to the region too.
As this demonstrates, ST still thinks they are running a PR firm rather than an actual well-used transit service.
She’s obviously hired to not rock the boat.
It does look like she’s been living in DC so hopefully she understands a rider’s perspective better than others at ST.
[ah]
– University Link Extension gave about 7 weeks notice before opening.
– Northgate Link Extension gave about 25 weeks notice before opening.
– Eastside Starter Line gave about 10 weeks notice before opening.
– Lynnwood Link Extension gave about 21 weeks notice before opening.
I looked up how far in advance ST announces extension openings, to see if there was any pattern that would give a clue as to when they might announce the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opening, but there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. The only thing I know is they said they will open the DRLE this spring, and spring runs from March 20th to June 21st. The last week of this month will be 7 weeks from the start of spring, so it is conceivable they could announce the opening date of the DRLE at the end of this month.
Assuming a minimum announcement period of ~6 weeks (which is probably as short of notice as extension opening event organizers will accept in order to book speakers, vendors, and such), we might also not see a formal opening date announcement until late April or early May.
I think I said last month that the lack of setting a date suggests that to me that there are unforeseen problems that are not yet public.
I’m guessing it’s something with signals or communication that’s the problem. ST doesn’t like to disclose problems without including a revised completion target.
And it’s not like Redmond leaders are publicly breathing down the neck of ST staff to get the service open.
There could be other reasons like finding drivers or needing access across Lake Washington. Or maybe ST doesn’t want to run more mostly empty service for budget reasons. But the tea leaves seem to point to an unexpected last minute technical problem as I said above.
It’s really too bad the ST turned the formerly informative progress reports into a pretty picture book with vague statements.
@Sam,
The normal flow on bringing these extensions on-line is 2 months for fit and function (verification) testing followed by 4 months of simulated service. So 6 months total.
But they announced the start of verification testing back in April of 2024, which means we are now in the 9th month. And they still haven’t even announced the formal start of simulated service yet. Crazy.
I’m not sure if DRLE has become the red headed stepchild of Sound Transit, or if ST is just giving priority to other projects. LLE and Full ELE clearly are more important projects, but this is getting ridiculous.
And now ST is hyping the start of live wire testing on FWLE, but I still haven’t seen a similar announcement for DRLE. Nor have a I seen a single picture/video of a Link LRV on RDLE.
But hey, maybe soon, right? I was hoping to get some inside info on this, but last Friday’s memorial service intervened. So I have nothing to share.
I’m pretty sure LLE regular simulated service started on or just before the first week of July 2024, and LLE began service at the end of August. So, two months of simulated service. There was some sporadic testing in June, but it wasn’t simulated service. So I’m not so sure they will do a full four months of simulated service for the DRLE.
@Sam,
The early part of simulated service actually has a lot of stop and start to it. It’s not like they just throw a switch and it goes to full simulation on day one.
But they haven’t even made a formal announcement yet about the official start of simulated service. Very strange.
Don’t get me wrong. I want DRLE to open, and open soon. But it is pretty clear that ST put it on the slow track. It should be open by now, but apparently we are still at least months away.
I’m still sort of expecting a March/April opening date, but I find that disappointing. And I have no inside info at this point. Exactly none.
The pre-July 1st LLE testing wasn’t simulated service. What they would do in June is they would sometimes run single car out to Lynnwood and back, usually in the late morning, and that would be it for the day. But, on or around July 1st, yes, they did metaphorically flip a switch, and go into simulated service, where the swept every northbound train at Northgate, then continued to Lynnwood empty. These were four-car, regular service trains that were running empty to LCC. That was simulated service. The occasional lone car, once a day train in June wasn’t. Perhaps those June trips operator familiarization rides.
Who needs groundhogs when you have Sam keeping the schedule?
Does anyone know how much simulated service they are required to do on the DRLE?
Yes, someone knows.
The decision of Pinehurst was inevitable. The candidate names in the survey did not vary by much, and that was the only name that fit every criteria.
It sort of begs the question about how ST selects finalist names. It seems disingenuous to even offer up the other three names in the first place because they knew that they weren’t fully compliant. Why even go through the charade of a naming survey if you rig the outcome beforehand?
Because the public process is mandatory, not voluntary.
They listed most of the names that made sense during the survey. I don’t know what other name you were thinking aboit
Al is saying ST stacked the deck with the Pinehurst name. The choices were:
– Pinehurst
– Pinehurst/Haller Lake
– Pinehurst/130th St.
– North Seattle/130th St.
Other possible names to choose from could have been Jackson Park, Haller Lake-Lake City, North Seattle. Any others? ST is horrible at station names. Lynnwood City Center. East Main. Redmond Technology. It’s Downtown Redmond, but Bellevue Downtown?
Yes ST has inconsistencies in station names, but that’s partly because of the community input process. In this case, I think the result was a clear, concise, unambiguous station name.
130th would have been the most useful and accurate. It’s like a 20 minute walk to Pinehurst proper, iirc. It will cause confusion.
I can’t believe the public pushed for Lynnwood City Center, Bellevue Downtown, Downtown Redmond, or Shoreline South. That has to the city governments self-aggrandizing, and in inconsistent ways.
(As opposed to simpler neutral names like Lynnwood, Bellevue, Redmond, or Jackson Park North.)
The most informative name would have been 130th-No-Parking-Garage Station. It would have added the benefit of raising the cost of building a garage Majal there.
Of course, what passes for a “city center” in Lynnwood and a “downtown” in Federal Way is a random couple of big box stores with huge parking lots that could be literally anywhere. The names are ridiculous.
@Brent White,
“ The most informative name would have been 130th-No-Parking-Garage Station.”
LOL. But I always thought the most descriptive name would be “Potemkin Station at 130th”. It tells the user everything they need to know.
But following your line of reasoning, maybe the most informative name would have been “130th-No Parking Garage-No Bus Turning Loop-No Bus Layover-No TOD Station”.
But hey, maybe “130th Last in Everything Station” would be the most succinct.
Exactly, Sam. ST knew their answer before posting the survey!
I’m actually fine with the name — like Zach stated below.
But I was surprised that another standalone name like Haller Lake, Northacres, Jackson Park and/or Thornton Creek weren’t on the finalists list. Any of those four would have met the criteria discussed in the details about naming.
130th-No Parking Garage-No Bus Turning Loop-No Bus Layover-No TOD Station”.
Three of those don’t matter. The fourth is true of every station north of Northgate. Just to break it down:
1) No parking garage. It is a subway station not an Olive Garden.
2) No bus turnaround loop. Actually there is, but don’t let facts stop you.
3) No Bus Layover. Why would a bus layover there when it is half way between neighborhoods? That would be a terrible design. That would be like running a bus from Kenmore and then stopping by the freeway instead of continuing west, connecting to Aurora and the college. Oh, wait…
4) No TOD. Yes, because it is by the freeway! The same can be said for every station north of Roosevelt. ST messed up and decided to put the stations next to the freeway instead of where more people could walk to it.
You are forgetting the main reason they added this station (and should have included it in the first place): They were building the rest of it. They were going to Lynnwood no matter what. They were going via the freeway no matter what. That is makes stations like 148th and Mountlake Terrace worth the money even if the overall project isn’t.
@Ross
Ah no you see Ross any station without a parking garage is not a real station. In fact capitol hill, westlake, etc… those all should be closed. Lynnwood station should only connect to Northgate parking garage and then to the angle lake parking garage.
/s
@Wesley Lin,
The problem with Potemkin Station is that the surrounding area has none of the characteristics of an urban neighborhood, yet the station itself has none of the accoutrements of a suburban station. The station basically fails in every manner in which failure is possible.
Think of it. The much maligned East Main Station already has 10 times more urban development than Potemkin Station ever will. The Watermark tower is something like 20 stories high (approx), and isn’t even a quarter mile from East Main. And that isn’t the only large development near the station. We will never see urban development like that at Potemkin Station.
Na, probably the closest comparison to Potemkin Station would be Star Lake Station. Star Lake Station is very suburban, but it also has a parking garage, a bus turning loop, and layover space. Potemkin Station does not have those things.
Additionally, Star Lake Station is more developable, Potemkin Station isn’t. With a golf course to the northeast, a ravine and wetland to the east, another park to the south west, and a freeway to the west, Potemkin Station is pretty much the least developable station area in the ST system.
But hey, the decision to site a station at 130th was political. And politics doesn’t always result in good transit.
@Lazarus
first of all you don’t need to pretend. You just don’t like the station because it slows down your trip from lynnwood.
> The problem with Potemkin Station is that the surrounding area has none of the characteristics of an urban neighborhood, yet the station itself has none of the accoutrements of a suburban station. The station basically fails in every manner in which failure is possible.
It has more housing units nearby than 145h station, 185th station., or mountlake terrace station.
also both 145th and mountlake terrace are also next to a golf course so while not ideal the other stations have the same problem.
> Additionally, Star Lake Station is more developable,
Is it actually? it’s mostly single family housing. And note that usually means harder to develop not easier due to zoning restrictions
I think we should call it the Lazarus-Doesn’t-Understand-This-Station-Even-Though-People-Have-Explained-It-To-Him-Dozens-Of-Times Station.
Oh, and Lazarus doesn’t understand the East Main Station either. Let me try and explain that one: You see, Lazarus, the problem with East Main is not that there is a station there. The problem is that there isn’t a station to the west (on Bellevue Way) where it could serve way more people.
In the case of 130th, the pathway was set. There was only one way to connect to the potential network and that was with a station close to the freeway.
If you are arguing that they should have taken a different pathway north of Roosevelt then YES — I agree! Just about everyone does. Going by the freeway was a terrible idea. It means that *every* station has limited walk-up potential. None of them can have much in the way of local development. They are all highly dependent on the buses feeding them. Some are dependent on the parking garages (which pushes up the cost and limits the potential ridership as well).
Think of it this way Lazarus. Start from the assumption that a train line will go north of Northgate. Obviously a station makes sense on 130th either to serve Lake City, Bitter Lake or at the very least connect to the corridor which connects them. There are other options along the corridor — 15th NE (the north end of Pinehurst) or Ingraham for example. Unfortunately, they choose the worst possible spot along 130th. But that doesn’t mean you should ignore the corridor.
It is like Mount Baker Station. It is awful. They blew it. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a station there! You would never just throw up your hands and say “Oh jeeze, we can’t put the station in an ideal spot — let’s just skip this one”. Yet that is precisely what you are suggesting. Your attitude appears to be “Screw Lake City, screw Bitter Lake and screw everyone in between”. That is just a very bad approach when it comes to building a mass transit line.
As someone else who knows the area well and has for decades, Ross, I appreciate your continued attempts over the years to explain this, despite it being like trying to pound a nail into a steel plate. The station is 7 minutes by bus from Lake City and 5 from Bitter Lake; Lake City already is one of the more densely populated areas north of the U District and Bitter Lake is catching up – and both have a great deal of additional opportunities to develop. This is a bus intercept station. It is located on one of the few possible cross-town paths in the North End (148th should have been the same, and at 145th, but was terribly sited – although the parking could still have been built). If Metro ends up rerouting the 75 to Bitter Lake or Shoreline CC as we’ve discussed, this station will have direct service from every neighborhood in northern Seattle between Roosevelt and 145th. Even without that, the major neighborhoods – far more populous than anything on 145th or 185th, although those stations are fine – will all have frequent and direct service to Link. It’s a solid piece of a network (I realize some people are so mode-specific that this does not compute) that allows for easy movement around that part of the city and connections to others.
I wish there were greater opportunities for walk-up use there – and some will be developed where possible and along the corridor – but in a political decision that made for bad transit, ST sited the line along a path that has limited opportunity for TOD. This was their decision. Even in 1968, the Forward Thrust scoping document warned specifically about building next to freeways for the exact same reasons. As you so accurately say, no matter where the line(s) in the north end were built, there would have been a station at 125th/130th. At a time where this agency is building stations that have an expected ridership of 1200 people, slamming a network node station is sadly typical of transit agencies in this area who cannot figure out that people will use multiple modes to get to multiple places, and they want easy transfers to do so.
I don’t view Ross as explaining things, so much as he just sharing his opinion, like everyone else here does.
An opinion would be was the station needed/useful, or not – there can be varying opinions as to that. An explanation is *why* it was added, functionally. In this regard both Lazarus (it was added for political reasons – a factual statement as the City Council/Debora Juarez pushed for it), and Ross (it is a bus intercept station that was added because it works as part of a network and serves two adjacent communities – also a factual statement and an explanation; the station would have no utility if it were sited at, say, 120th or next to the golf course where there is no crossing of I-5 and no streets at all running E-W) are not stating opinions. These are both explanatory statements. *Why* it might work – or not – yes, those are opinions. It is possible to hold both within a single statement – my “Lake City is 7 minutes by bus” is not an opinion; my follow-up that this will make the station useful to Lake City residents is an opinion.
I don’t view Ross as explaining things, so much as he just sharing his opinion, like everyone else here does.
It is both Sam. I have repeatedly explained the purpose of the station (Scott does a good job of this as well). I have also repeatedly explained why the various issues Lazarus raises are not important.
But of course I have an opinion based on such information, which is that the station is worth it.
All I said was I view Ross as sharing his opinion like everyone else here does. And, you are right, sometimes commenters include facts in their opinions.
Because the public may have unexpected ideas or attitudes you wouldn’t know without doing the survey. It may turn out something is very popular or unpopular.
I knew the station name would get more comments than the street improvements and Ferguson’s backsliding on ferry electrification.
Well, I did make it the title of the post.
I’m not. The ferry electrification is technically a delay — although their long life span does make it seem like a flat out policy change. The street improvements read like an update rather than a big decision.
The station name feels more like news. It took ST years to rename Symphony station even with its obvious naming conflicts in the old name — so it seems station names are permanent.
I think the problem is that the ferry system is in a state of constant crisis trying to keep the basic service running, they don’t have resources to spend on big capital projects like electrification. Unfortunately, this is a problem that doesn’t look like it’s going to go away anytime soon, so expect this to be postponed and postponed – if you want to go to Bainbridge Island on electric power, you’ll have to either buy your own boat, or drive around in an electric car.
It takes a lot of horsepower to propel through water. Ferries are cool and innovative forms of transport — but honestly they are relatively more inefficient energywise, especially car ferries. Any system efficiency comes by reducing distances from something like 80 miles on land to 8 miles on water.
The ferry system is part of the state highway system, and so eligible for an influx of money from gas tax, if the legislature would be willing to prioritize its electrification over expanding highways.
Pinehurst is fine and honestly the best choice tbh
US DOT grants $25 million for Graham St station. Also Skagit County is getting $19.5 million for a bus maintenance facility https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/washington-state-receives-funding-for-sound-transit-station-rail-improvements-at-port-of-benton/
I sure hope Julie Meredith follows Roger Millar’s recent strategy of pivoting from new highway programs to maintenance of our existing highways. The maintenance is desperately needed, while new highway capacity will only incentivize demand for more.
It is actually more and more difficult to propose pure freeway expansion on these days if FHWA is involved (like on US highway and Interstate). I don’t think WSDOT is into that right now given the budget challenge.
What I am more worried is how WSDOT will navigate through the coming years with limited budget and whether budget challenge means WSDOT will reconsider their commitment to transit improvement on WSDOT right-of-way.
The big new freeway project era has been over for awhile. Nowadays it seems new freeway construction is restricted to a few gap closures like 167 and 509 (except for the Spokane 395 project which has been planned for several decades). The freeway work I see now is either maintenance or to add the toll lanes (which in theory pay for themselves) or it’s an interchange modernization project or something to do with salmon runs.
My biggest peeve is that the toll lane revenue isn’t enhancing transit services. Other states with higher peak tolls send money to offer better parallel transit. The Golden Gate Bridge tolls subsidizes both buses on the bridge and ferries in the Bay both, for example. The same district collects bridge tolls, and operates both buses and ferries.
> The big new freeway project era has been over for awhile
They are still expanding 405 with an additional lane with the toll lanes, and also are adding new freeway entrances at 124th avenue. combined with sr 167 and sr 509 I’d find it hard to say it’s not freeway expansion.
SR 167 itself is not “finished yet”. wsdot in 2023 completed their master plan https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/SR167-MasterPlan-PELStudy-AttachmentD.pdf with plans to widen it “Dual ETLs between I-405 and SR 512 (20 miles)”
i-5 is currently undergoing a master plan which will probably talk about additional widenings and ramps as well. (well probably not widening in seattle but outside of downtown)
If the goal is to reduce congestion on the freeway, adding entrances is not how you go about it. Each entrance ramp is a merge point, and if you want traffic on the freeway to move, you need fewer merge points, not more of them.
167 funding out of port of Tacoma is tenuous I hear. There was talk of pausing it, due to funding problems, though I think it will still proceed. State budgets are very tight. Pierce County exec is not a fan of the Canyon Road Hwy extension project over the Puyallup either.
Does anyone in charge care about reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions?
No.
“> The big new freeway project era has been over for awhile
They are still expanding 405 with an additional lane with the toll lanes, and also are adding new freeway entrances at 124th avenue. combined with sr 167 and sr 509 I’d find it hard to say it’s not freeway expansion.”
I didn’t say freeway widenings are over. I only said building whole new freeways are over.
Plus the few new freeway segments of SR 167 and 509 are really the freeway gap closure projects I was referring to. And both of them are serving freight movements with our ports. All of the people ordering many small packages rather than buying things at the store (which was getting one big package) has increased freight truck traffic significantly.
I laugh when someone thinks that ordering online is good for greenhouse gas emissions. It has decimated our transit-friendly Downtown shopping districts while adding loads of new trucks carrying little cardboard boxes long distances. A person may be lowering their personal VMT but they still often are increasing their carbon footprint by buying online.
Kudos to Sound Transit for adding elevator redundancy to the east entrance of its second-busiest station (SeaTac Airport)!
That’s one down, and four to go:
* One direct elevator between the street level and each platform at Tukwila International Boulevard
* One from the street level to each platform at Mt Baker
Are these on your wish list or on ST’s actual project list?
I am unaware of them being on ST’s project list. Sorry for any confusion.
It is an ST project, and we reported on it. It’s in the last paragraph, with a link to the project. Construction started January 8 to add a second elevator on the SeaTac pedestrian bridge, down to the east side of the street (northbound buses and a dropoff lot). The project will last a year, and there will be occasional closures of the bridge or the existing elevator. I assume that’s because they have to do more than just install an elevator: they probably have to modify the bridge and the place the elevator shaft will be.
If Brent is saying the second elevator is already installed and running, that contradicts the project page that says it will take a year. I haven’t been to SeaTac recently so I don’t know which is the case.
I haven’t heard anything about the Mt Baker or TIB elevators. ST is replacing the elevators in the DSTT, starting with Intl Dist. Two of them were closed for construction when I was there two weeks ago. And it may be on a general elevator/escalator replacement binge elsewhere. It has been doing elevator maintenance at one of the Shoreline stations, or was it Lynnwood?
Brent is not saying that the construction of the second elevator to the pedestrian overpass above Pacific Highway is completed.
Brent is thanking Sound Transit for prioritizing it.
I agree on the Mt Baker missing second elevators Brent. Not only is it pretty far down those stairs but second elevators look very easy to add.
A large number of riders use that elevator because it’s so many steps down and there are no down escalators. I’ve gotten off trains there many times and most riders actually avoid the stairs. It’s a classic case of heavy elevator use when there are no down escalators and lots of stair steps.
I recall they used to close the SeaTac Airport station in the middle of the night (~2-5 AM) and that it blocked access to the footbridge to International Boulevard and the A line. Do they still do this?
I don’t know for sure, but the A Line ridership data suggests they still do. The A Line stops at 180th (inbound) and 182nd (outbound) have disproportionately more riders boarding or alighting at night (10pm-5am).
Note that the original flaw remains; riders oriented to/from the southbound bus stop have to cross International boulevard south twice. That is a wide seam.
There’s a discrepancy on the project map for the 40 corridor between the SDOT blog and the SDOT project site. One map shows a new bus signal and the other doesn’t. The bus signal is located near Lake Union Park. Does anyone have concrete info on this? Is there actually going to be a new bus signal installed? If so, will it be at Valley St?
My understanding is that the plan is to put in a southbound right-side bus lane approaching the signal at the 9th/Westlake split, then add a special signal phase allowing the bus to turn left from the right lane. Everything I’ve heard suggests this plan is indeed happening.
Does anyone know which routes lay over at the new Eastlake Ave layover spot just north of REI?
No, but I’ve seen a few buses with a new phrase in their back-to-base display: “EASTLAKE”.
Try routes 101, 102, and 150.
It is hard to care about Washington’s second-most-expensive transit service when the commoners are priced out of riding it.
Want to increase ridership on Washington State Ferries without adding more ferries? Lower the walk-on fare and add more lifeboats. And/or accept PugetPass, and/or create an ORCA Lift fare matching the RRFP fare, and/or honor the Subsidized Annual Pass.
No more money for non-electric car ferries!
Some of them could even be replaced by electric water taxis, especially on lines with more than one car ferry running at a time.
“It is hard to care about Washington’s second-most-expensive transit service when the commoners are priced out of riding it.”
The fare is $10.25 rt or $5.125 per direction. That’s cheaper than Sounder South to Tacoma and Lakewood and only a bit more expensive than North Sounder to Everett.
So the claim that it’s out of reach for normal people is a bit absurd when that is the price to commute by Sounder.
Sounder riders have a free transfer to other local bus services, and Sounder honors transfer value from other local bus services.
Sounder chargers just $1 to those with reduced fare ORCA cards, and allows those with a Subsidized Annual Pass to ride free.
Washington State Ferries’ charging only one way enables the passes to be sky high, while performing Greyhound therapy in the Seattle direction.
I do want Washington State Ferries to survive, and electrify. Setting the walk-on fare to make it worthwhile to drive a car on board, and rarely have the passenger deck be crowded, is bad pricing.
And not to mention many of the ferries serving some of the most expensive real estate in the country. It’s hard to cry crocodile tears for those choosing to live the island life in Winslow, and getting a 20 minute 5 dollar ride to downtown Seattle. Compare that to the hour trip off peak by those in the Kent Valley desperately trying keep the slightest toehold in King County as they are price out of wealthier areas closer to Seattle.
All of Kitsap county is not Bainbridge Island.
True. There’s also Vashon, Friday Harbor, Whidbey. Tiny violins.
Bremerton and Southworth garner minor sympathy, but driving the Narrows is almost a wash for them.
Some of the people on Bainbridge and Vashon have lived there for multiple generations. Ferry commuting is not their lifestyle, but they still need the ferries to get to the mainland for hospitals, supplies, events, regional travel, people visiting them, etc.
There’s also Poulsbo, Silverdale, Kingston, Bremerton.
Some of us were pushed out to more affordable areas, same as those that are getting pushed out to the north, south and east.
Stop with the class bullshit, your sounding like tacomee.
Here’s a stat that I would find interesting that is somewhat related to what Cam is talking about. Is there a way to find out if the Kent area receives less than its fair share of transit service to similarly sized local cities? Maybe he’s on to something. But I don’t think comparing a short ferry ride to a long bus ride proves anything.
Tell me you don’t know much about Kitsap County without telling me you don’t know much about Kitsap County. Classic over-simplification tactic lumping everyone across the Sound with Bainbridge Island.
Signed, non-Bainbridge, frequent ferry rider.
Isn’t the priciest real estate in Seattle?
Is there a way to find out if the Kent area receives less than its fair share of transit service to similarly sized local cities?
What do you consider fair? Consider both sides of the equation. If you are looking at ridership then you ignore borders. Otherwise you wouldn’t be maximizing ridership. A few routes that run through Kent perform well, but most do not. Thus a system focuses purely on ridership wouldn’t have much service to Kent.
Coverage — by its every definition — will be more spread out. So streets in Kent should get just as much coverage as streets in Seattle. But even coverage has its issues. You want to “cover” as many people while also also minimizing the distance they have to walk. Sometimes areas are difficult to cover and thus get left out.
From what I can tell Kent has coverage that is consistent with similar areas. I think from a ridership standpoint they are doing OK as well (e. g. the routes that do well have good frequency).
In terms of Sounder, the subsidy per boarding was $6.73 (for the whole line) as of 2017. I don’t have any more recent data. That was more than most ST buses (and the average ST Express subsidy). But plenty of other cities are in the same boat. In the case of Edmonds, Sounder riders are probably getting a huge subsidy but that doesn’t mean that Edmonds riders wouldn’t much rather trade that for better bus service.
Comparing it to the ferries is a bit apples and oranges. Passenger ferries around here tend to be very expensive per rider. Regular ferries charge a lot for cars and less for riders. You could make the case that the cost per rider should be minimal or nonexistent (the drivers should pay it all). That sort of approach wouldn’t make sense for Sounder.
Overall I see nothing out of the ordinary for Kent — service (of various types) is what you would expect.
@Sam,
“ Is there a way to find out if the Kent area receives less than its fair share of transit service to similarly sized local cities?”
Are you suggesting that Metro should move to some sort of sub-area equity model like what Sound Transit uses? But on an intra-county scale?
Such a concept would be interesting, but if the metric was transit spending in a jurisdiction relatively to transit dollars raised, I’m not sure the result would favor a jurisdiction like Kent.
But hey, Metro’s main focus now is equity, and if equity drives routing decisions, then the money flow is relatively unimportant. Equity will determine where future transit dollars are spent, and not considerations like ridership or economics.
Metro’s main focus now is equity … and not considerations like ridership or economics.
Unlike Sound Transit which isn’t concerned with equity, ridership or economics.
I don’t want to get too deep into this. I was just addressing Cam’s assertion that Kent, perhaps because it is poorer and more diverse, isn’t getting the same level of transit service as whiter, wealthier areas. He used the example of comparing a Seattle ferry ride to Kent bus ride. All I was saying is there should be better data than that to either confirm, or deny, Cam’s claim. Anyway, this is of more interest to Cam than myself, so take it from here, Cam, if you want.
@Sam,
“ that Kent, perhaps because it is poorer and more diverse, isn’t getting the same level of transit service as whiter, wealthier areas”
Understood per just wanting the data, but I’m not sure the data would support that assertion. At least not if the metric was transit dollars received per dollars raised.
And richer, whiter people tend to ride the bus less, mainly because they have the resources not to. So if the metric was transit usage per capita, the data still might not tell the story everyone expects.
It’s sort of like the continuous whine from E.Wa about how their tax dollars fund Seattle streets, when in reality the tax dollars flow the other direction.
But, ya, data is fun. I’m all for getting the data. But I don’t think it will change anything at Metro.
King County Metro got rid of its four subarea based financial policies in 2011; the council adopted the service guidelines. There had been three subareas since the early 1990s.
Continuing the topic of electrification, vanpools seem like very low hanging fruit, as they can be charged overnight at the driver’s house, same as any other electric car. Did not realize the Model Y had 7 seats, though. I was expecting a large SUV, like a Rivian R1S.
The Model Y trunk has a fold up pair of seats. I rode in one this weekend and those seats are small. Neither the seat or the legroom would accommodate an average sized person. The other 5 seats are fine though.
According to Google, the Rivian R1S also seats 7, but has more room in it than a Tesla Model Y.
The article doesn’t say what the requirements are, why the Model Y was the only vehicle that met them, and what year the vehicles were even evaluated in. But, reading between the lines, it’s probably price – the Model Y retails for way less than the R1S does.
In ideal world, somebody would make an electric minivan designed for use as a vanpool, with the passenger capacity of an SUV, but without all the “adventure” themed bells and whistles that drive up the price, but are totally useless to vanpool commuters. But, at the moment, such vehicles are still gas-only in the US, as they aren’t sold in enough volume for the automaker to feel electrification is worthwhile.
Of course, electric minivans absolutely do exist in China, but we Americans have tariffs to keep them out because our politicians have decided that we all need to pay more for worse vehicles in order to protect the profits of our domestic manufacturers. The same problem also exists with buses, and is a big reason why bus electrification here is so expensive.
The model Y seven seater isn’t quite true. It does have “two seats” in the third row but barely a teenager can fit in them let alone an adult.
https://www.yeslak.com/blogs/tesla-news-insights/tesla-model-y-7-seater-available-europe
Maybe the new refreshed model 7 has a slightly larger 7 seater but im not sure.
If only some transit agencies would put their heads together and do a bulk purchase of electric vans matching their specs.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/01/14/seattle-hiring-small-army-of-planners-for-sound-transit-3-work/
So ST cost and time overruns end up costing needed Metro bus service.
We can’t be surprised about this, right?
Does anyone have access to more detailed ridership information? Specifically ridership per stop per route for KCM? Is that something I would need to reach out to Metro for?
Yes, pretty much. I’ll send you an email.
Just rode on a TriMet battery bus (low floor Gillig) for the first time. They used to be confined to the west side, but there’s a couple today on the 71.
Just as uncomfortable as the diesel equivalent TriMet orders, but definitely has better acceleration. Might make some of the routes a bit faster at some point.
RTO seems to be off to a smashing start. Waiting for the 40 at Westlake and Valley and OneBusAway has shown the bus stuck trying to make it through the Blanchard/Westlake/Denny bottleneck for about 10 minutes, all while saying it’s 3 minutes from arrival.
The new year brought a move into a new office, so I have spent the last two weeks commuting via the new RapidRide “G” route. While the ride quality is as rough as it is on any other bus, in all other respects this seems to be the best transit service in the city: the experience is seamless and swift.
At the stop, I typically wait about as long as it takes to tap my orca card, settle in, and pull out my phone; the moment I start wondering when the bus will arrive, I can generally look up to see it approaching.
Once on board, the stops pass by so quickly that I have to watch carefully to avoid missing my destination, which I have done twice already. I suppose I will get used to the new bus’ speed eventually but for now it remains a delightful surprise how often the ride ends before I expect it to.
How about we don’t purchase 120 vehicles from a NAZI. There are other electric options for vanpool.
I’m inclined to agree. Musk’s brazen display should not be tolerated.
[ed: I also removed the duplicate comment with the spelling error]