Last week, Martin Pagel captured this picturesque scene from the I-90 floating bridge bike path. In it, we can see a contactor has parked a hi-rail box truck near one of the custom-designed railway hinges which allow the railway to safely flex with the movements of the floating bridge.

Transit & Streets:

Land Use & Housing:

Other News & Commentary:

This is an Open Thread. Interested in lending your voice to the Blog? Contact us.

82 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Americans Want Walkability”

  1. What’s going on with the 520 Montlake Lid bus stops? 255, 271, 542 buses have been using the bus lanes and ramp for several months but ST/Metro have yet to install signage and buses aren’t making stops at these new stops. They are storing unused equipment in the eastbound bus stop pullover lane. There is also supposed to be a good direct connection from the northbound 48 here too

    1. Are they waiting till the spring service change?

      Westbound, I have had a driver ask if anyone wanted off and let us off there.

      1. Metro is in charge of stopping there (or not). But Metro is probably not in charge of the signage. That is either the city or state (whoever owns the land). It would not surprise me if the state is dragging their feet (especially if they are storing stuff there).

      2. I vaguely remember there being some lagging items like installing lighting or something. Seems like there are some finishes that need to be done before they can formally be used as stops, but those finishes are low-priority for WSDOT.

    2. I wonder the feasibility of putting in battery backup for Link trains. Keep in mind, the battery doesn’t need to be on the trains, themselves – any stationary ground location with a connection to the overhead wire would do. One would think a Tesla Megapack or similar ought to last quite awhile, especially if trains run at reduced frequency and speed while on backup power to conserve energy, which is still better than not running the trains at all.

  3. I understand that storage and charging lots for robotaxis have to go somewhere, but dense, urban areas is not where this stuff belongs. The right place to put it in industrial parts of town, or, even better, big box store parking lots during the overnight hours when the store is closed (if customers get lots of chargers to use when the store is open, that’s just an extra bonus).

    For example, in the case of Seattle, infrastructure like this belongs in SODO, not downtown, SLU, or Queen Anne.

  4. Snow today and the G-Line is not operating. It’s replaced by the useless route 90. Does anyone know if there’s a message on the live reader-boards stating service is cancelled?

      2. The cameras and videos show traffic traveling up and down Madison. It shows that parts of Madison are not blocked off due to icy conditions. They show trolley buses traveling up and down James. In my expert opinion, Madison street is currently safe for buses.

        – Sam. Bloviating know-it-all.

      3. Roads don’t get blocked by icy conditions, they get blocked by drivers who crash their vehicles in icy conditions. Should Metro take the risk of running buses on potentially-icy roads?

      4. Btw, Nathan, not too long ago you asked for post ideas. This isn’t exclusively a post idea, this is something someone could write a comment about, but I think it would be interesting if someone rode the route 90 today. Even if just a portion of it. I’d like to hear a first-hand account of what it’s like. Did it arrive fairly soon? Was it busy? I’d even like to know if it’s chained. Are they using the flimsy cable chains, or those thick link snow chains?

        – Sam. Weekly World News subscriber.

      5. I would love an account from someone riding Route 90 today, or even someone who’s ridden it in the past.

      6. @Sam,

        “In my expert opinion, Madison street is currently safe for buses.”

        I’m sure you are right.

        But RR-G has marginal traction just on an average rainy day. So I’m sure Metro wasn’t willing to risk having a RR-G bus slip on a snowflake.

      7. The 2 isn’t running on Madison either. They are suggesting you ride the 90. It is not G-thing. It is a Madison thing. Looks like the 3, 4 and 12 are also suggesting the 90 (for First Hill, Capitol Hill and Central District areas). I’m surprised the Upper Queen Anne sections are OK.

        Given the weather my guess is they will soon be back to normal.

      8. I rode the 90 today! My goal is to ride every single Metro route this year so I was excited to get the chance today. I hopped on at Harvard & Pine and took it to 15th. This was around 9 AM. I was the only person on the bus during my brief trip.

    2. The streets are pretty ice free by 10 am. Things may be almost fully melted by 3 pm.

      What’s the protocol for restoring normal service? I get that drivers may not have shown up for work, but running circuitous snow routes (which take more time and thus drivers relatively speaking) when there’s no reason to seems a bit silly.

      1. NWS has issued a Winter Weather Advisory for snow flurries and slippery roads until 10am tomorrow. It seems safe to assume Metro’s operations will wait until at least the advisory has ended before restoring operations to RR-G.

    3. It’s not just RR-G that got impacted. This morning even RR-B was only running about every 4th trip. Don’t ask me why.

      It would be nice if there was some spot where you could see a comprehensive list of all the routes impacted, but near as I can tell such a thing doesn’t exist.

      2. Yes and it even has a cute little snowflake icon so you can see the buses and areas effected. First Hill, Capitol Hill and Central District areas seem hardest hit but a few buses to the suburbs, especially the south. As Nathan mentioned it probably isn’t the roads themselves, it is the cars on the roads (that they haven’t cleared yet).

    4. The email announcements I got this morning said the Eastside is on snow routes. I didn’t see one for Seattle but there may be.

      We don’t need to second-guess Metro’s operational decisions regarding snow judgment calls. It would be worse if Metro waited too long.

      The 90 is an attempt to provide some service to First Hill residents and visitors when the 2, 3, 4, or G are impacted. It’s loopy but that’s the nature of First Hill.

    5. The G is back to normal. So are the 2, 3, 4 and 12. This is as expected. From a snow perspective, the G is not special. If it goes down, chances are the other buses in the area (especially the 2) are in the same boat. If the 2 and 12 are running normally, chances are the G is running normally as well.

      As of right now most of the buses are operating OK in Seattle but there are plenty are adjustments being made in the suburbs. Most of these look fairly minor though. It is definitely worth checking the web page Nathan mentioned (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/rider-tools/service-advisories) for your bus.

      1. Ross, what’s the difference between the G Line, and the routes 2, 3, 4, and 12, during regular, less-than-Emergency Snow Network snow events? In other words, this morning, what was the difference between the G Line, and those other routes?

      2. what’s the difference between the G Line, and the routes 2, 3, 4, and 12, during regular, less-than-Emergency Snow Network snow events?

        Not much. That is my point. The routes are slightly different so it is quite possible that the G would be running on its normal route when the 2 isn’t (or vice versa). But this morning they were basically the same. The 3, 4 are similar — if one is on snow route, it is highly likely the other one is as well. The 12 has more in common with the 10. It was kind of odd to see the 12 being on snow route, but not the 10. Given that part of Madison is not particularly steep my guess is there was some sort of accident (or it just happened to be a coincidence and there was a problem on 19th).

  5. I just rode Link down from Shoreline. It was sort of a surreal experience to glide along smooth rails at 55 mph while looking down at all the carnage a the local streets.

    It’s definitely a good option on days like today.

    1. I skied the Jackson Park golf course today but forgot my camera. There were a couple spots where I could have got a nice view of the train going by (with snow on the trees in the foreground). Maybe tomorrow if the weather is as expected.

  7. What “approval to toll drivers” can the Federal Highway Administration withold or grant? Sure, the FHA (this one, not the home builders) has some “experimental” tolling projects for Interstate highways for which they largely have paid, but the Federal government has no participation in the funding of the local streets in Lower Manhattan. The tolling curtain specifically exempts the Eastside and Westside Parkways that ring the south end of the island, and the north boundary is south of the George Washington-Triboro Bridge path to Long Island.

    The Feds have no oar in this water and should STFU.

    1. Can cities toll just beyond the freeway exits without the feds’ consent? That was an issue during Seattle’s tolling concepts.

      1. I do not know why not. There is still some Federal “revenue sharing” that goes to state DOT’s, but to my knowledge, there are no strings on it. Most of the rest of FHA expenditures go for specific projects, mostly on the Interstate system. So yes, I suppose that the Feds could claim some jurisdiction over what happens on “Federal Aid Primary” (US 101, US 2, etc) roads and the Interstate system, and they certainly do for the I-ways.

        But municipal streets? Oh that they would fund them, right? In any case, they don’t, and therefore I seriously doubt that any claims to forbid tolling them would be laughed out of court.

        Pay up or shut up.

      2. Whoops. I started out on one horse and then switched to another. The last line should end “therefore I expect that any claims to forbid tolling them would be laughed out of court.”

  8. I think there should be busses that mirror Link when it’s not in service at night. There are many people who would take Link but for the fact it won’t run late at night. For example, people going drinking on Capitol Hill, or departing early morning at Seatac. These people need options that don’t involve 2 transfers and a 30 minute walk.

    I know that our busiest bus lines have night owl service. Link has 10x the ridership of any of these, so it also deserves night owl service.

    2. I’ve often said that Metro’s owl route structure needs a route to follow Link — and that ST should pay for it.

      A good example of the problem is how ST Link service north of Beacon Hill northbound stops earlier than Link itself does. The last train from SeaTac is 1:30 am — but the last train past Beacon Hill is 12:13 am. There should be an ST funded bus connecting the rest of the stations for that next 77 minutes at least.

      SF Muni has owl buses that stop at the closed light rail stations. They also allow deboarding between stations if the driver can stop safely if a passenger requests it. Other cities do something similar.

      Another advantage of a parallel owl system is that there is a branded shuttle system in place should light rail have to close early. If some evening maintenance is needed, ST could stop trains at something like 8 or 9 PM if needed and simply start the owl service earlier. Because the owl service signage would already be in place, it takes very little effort to tell riders what to do.

      Ultimately the issue becomes who pays for the service. ST would balk. Perhaps the Board could direct ST to come up with a few million each year to run the service. The Board doesn’t flinch when spending several hundred million in construction to build a station for a small number of daily boardings so they should whine at the prospect of a small budget increase for owl operations.

      Except for Beacon Hill, every station has a pretty direct nearby street to use during overnight hours. Because traffic is so light, the bus won’t encounter significant congestion. The only exception could be a special late night event like midnight fireworks or a delayed sports event — but ST usually make modifications to address that demand anyway.

      1. Great points all, Al, except for one thing. Don’t you mean shouldn’twhine in reference to the Board?

    3. I agree. they should at least reform the bus routes to and from seatac at night and make it more obvious. It’s very confusing to use the “secret” route 124 extra trips from seatac after midnight.
      For rainier valley there’s the existing route 7 and for beacon hill there’s route 36.
      I guess one question is if we want some route in between TIBS and rainier beach.
      the 49 goes to capitol hill and 70 heads to udistrict.
      67 goes to roosevlet and northgate but very infrequent.
      For 145, 185, montlake and lynnwood theres no real alternative right now.
      for federal way link, rapidride a will mostly cover it.

      to fix this I would do
      1) increase the 124 night extension to seatac frequency and label a bit more obvious
      2) increase frequency of the 67 to hourly at least
      3) add night runs st express could go from seattle, northgate, 145, and lynnwood (185 would have to be skipped, mountlake is optional)
      4) consider a couple (not all) past midnight extension runs of route 7 from rainier beach to tibs non stop. it’d be long but also only 7 minutes.

      might be a fun idea to calculate how many bus hours this would take

      1. 1) Yeah, I didn’t even realize the 124 served SeaTac. That would definitely be handy and should be better publicized (although my guess is people who work late at night have figured it out and people who travel ask their phone for directions before giving up and calling a cab).

        I pretty much made the same suggestions as 2, 3, 4 at the same time. I would consider a couple differences. One is to serve 185th (between Mountlake Terrace and 145th) even though it would mean a little bit of backtracking. At that hour it would still be a fairly fast bus.

        The other difference is that I would skip TIBS and go from Rainier Valley to SeaTac. Hard to see that many people trying to get from TIBS to Rainier Valley but it is really easy to see plenty of people trying to get from Rainier Valley to SeaTac. Peak demand for the 574 is very early in the morning.

      2. The 124 has been extended for several years to SeaTac when Link isn’t running, but the map doesn’t show what the routing and stops are. So somebody would need to confirm it stops at the Link station bus bays.

        I looked this up when my roommate’s brother was staying here and needed to get from his Kent warehouse job to Capitol Hill at 4am. I assumed 181+124 (now 161+124) would be the best way, but I couldn’t confirm where the 124 stopped in SeaTac and said he’d have to check it.

        He ended up finding a better way. The H starts earlier in the morning than the 124 does, so he took the 181 from Kent to Burien TC and the H to downtown. It looks like you can do that now with the 161+H.

      3. For 3), Mountlake Terrace would be trivial to serve via the freeway station; any night owl bus down I-5 passing through there should definitely stop there.

      4. “Hard to see that many people trying to get from TIBS to Rainier Valley.”
        There are people who do work at SeaTac’s Car Rental facility, which is near TIBS and has an employee accessible entrance on International Blvd, which is an 8 minute walk from the station. You also have people getting off work late at night from nearby hotels, gas stations, or restaurants. So there are people who do work in the area around TIBS.

      5. WL, great idea for adding a nighttime Link Shadow for the north end. And the otherwise pretty much unused MLT flyer stop is a great place for it to serve. It just sits there, and would be a natural for this. The same sort of signage, perhaps lighted during the times that no trains are running, could direct folks to it. It’s a short walk from the platforms. And, yes, stopping at Northgate allows folks from the U-District to take the 67 that far and change to the ST Owl.

        Stopping at the 45th Street freeway stops is way too far from the Link station.

    4. I think there should be busses that mirror Link when it’s not in service at night.

      They kind of do. There are gaps, but looking at it by station:

      Angle Lake, SeaTac, TIBS (future Federal Way Stations) — A Line
      TIBS to SoDo, Stadium, downtown — 124
      Rainier Valley to downtown — 7 (although this might require a walk it is actually closer to most of the destinations)
      Beacon Hill to downtown — 36
      UW to U-District — 48
      U-District, Capitol Hill to downtown — 49
      Northgate, Roosevelt, UW — 67 (very limited service, I think it used to have more)

      I think the 7 and 49 used to connect to each other late at night (allowing for a one-seat ride from Rainier Valley to Capitol Hill). It isn’t clear they still do. A few of the combinations aren’t great by night owl, but most of Seattle is covered. This makes sense given the relative demand as well as the fact that Seattle pays for a lot of this. I would say first priority for Seattle would be to run the 67 more often. It would be nice to have a better connection from SeaTac to Rainier Valley as well.

      I could see ST running a night owl bus from Snohomish County. It wouldn’t be too hard to pick up various places in King County along the way. The E Line runs late at night, but the Swift Blue does not.

      1. And how many infrequent overnight bus routes would a rider have to figure out and wait for to get to station locations that normally have frequent, direct service?

        This may be “coverage” but it’s clearly confusing and time consuming to use.

      2. It is not confusing in the least. Pull out your phone and ask the map app for directions. Or figure it out at home and print out the instructions.

        As far as frequency goes, of course the buses aren’t as frequent as in middle of the day. The E runs every 7.5 minutes in the middle of the day and every half hour late at night. Are you suggesting it run more often late at night? Are you suggesting other buses run late at night — if so, which ones? Here is the current list: https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/travel-options/bus/night-owl. I could see the H and maybe the B.

      4. Even though most Link stations have a bus service at night, Metro’s night owl network lacks the convenient regional connectivity that Link provides. Getting from Rainier Beach to Northgate is a 3 seat ride (7 -> 48 -> 67) and low frequency means longer transfers.

        Also, if SeaTac is a significant trip generator when Link isn’t running the full route, ST should run an express bus with 30 minute frequency with stops at SeaTac, downtown Seattle, UW/U-District, Northgate, and Lynnwood. Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley are mostly covered by the late night and early morning Link trains (first southbound train arrives at SeaTac at 4:44am).

      5. Metro’s night owl network lacks the convenient regional connectivity that Link provides.

        Yes, and it lacks the convenient regional connectivity that our daytime buses provide as well. So what? Are you suggesting we just run all of our buses 24/7?

        Getting from Rainier Beach to Northgate is a 3 seat ride (7 -> 48 -> 67)

        Yes, and my guess is there are very few people trying to get from Rainier Beach to Northgate late at night. It is highly likely there are other trips that have a lot more more. For example downtown to High Point or some place along Delridge. To be clear, the 7/48 combination added a lot of value and it is shame that is no longer offered. The more these routes can be combined (late at night) the better.

        ST should run an express bus with 30 minute frequency with stops at SeaTac, downtown Seattle, UW/U-District, Northgate, and Lynnwood

        But that still skips SeaTac to Rainier Valley which probably has a lot more riders than SeaTac to Northgate, let alone Lynnwood. It stands to reason that someone living in Rainier Valley would take a job at SeaTac given the geography. I don’t see that from Northgate or Lynnwood.

        Meanwhile, SeaTac to downtown Seattle is already covered with the 124 (although it should be publicized better and could have better frequency). SeaTac to the UW is likely to pick up a few riders, but only close to the breaks (as students make their way to and from school). Downtown to the UW is handled by the 49, which is a lot more useful than an express (since it serves a lot of places). Would you reduce service on the 49?

        Which brings up the core problem. It is one thing to add a couple routes here and there (e. g. SeaTac to Rainier Valley or SeaTac to the UW). But to try and mimic all of Link starts costing a lot of money and you start overlapping other night owl service (that will likely carry a lot more riders). One of the main reasons Link has as many riders as it does is because it is fast and frequent. By its very nature it wouldn’t be as frequent and in various places it wouldn’t be faster. Link has a lot of distance between stops for obvious reasons. You don’t want that with a night owl. You want to pick up as many riders as possible, making a 7 better than a bus running on MLK that only stops at the stations.

        I’m not saying these things wouldn’t be nice but it isn’t clear to me that they are even the most important thing to add for night owl, let alone in general.

      1. “Real cities” don’t run trains 24/7 either. Besides nyc which has quad tracks which link does not have

      3. I mean, 12:30pm is better than T-Link’s 10pm, but both are an incredible waste of very expensive infrastructure, and neither get night-owls home from the bar. Or in the case of T-Link, old-fogies who linger over a glass of desert port.

      4. > Or just run the train later, like real cities.
        > I didn’t say 24/7.

        Link shuts down at 12:30 and then starts back up at 4:00. it already has a very short maintenance window. It can’t be extended any later into the night without pushing back the start time.

      5. The cost of running each train later is incrementally more expensive than running a replacement bus. While both situations require drivers, closing the enclosed stations earlier saves on needed security staff. Plus a maintenance window is needed for the tracks and stations.

        It’s really not that hard to run a bus the length of the 1 line overnight. It’s ok to not serve a few stations that are hard for an overnight bus to access. There are ST Express vehicles idle at that time so it’s incrementally just fuel and drivers that would be needed. .

        Call it the ST Express 501 or 695 (OWL on a keypad) and get it in service! !

        Then KC Metro can put their overnight service to use with other corridors.

        With all the service disruptions, ST should have developed the passenger info system to direct a rider to the bus if a train isn’t running anyway — and a bus route number to track the parallel service for bookkeeping. Something similar could work for the 2 Line when it opens — but maybe it would not run north beyond Downtown or UW.

      6. “It can’t be extended any later into the night without pushing back the start time.”

        I suspect a cushy 3 and a half hours, daily, is a choice. A choice to inconvenience riders, rather than pay a few more staff for an hour. That’s a choice, and it should be clearly stated, unless it isn’t. But I doubt it “can’t”.

      8. @cam

        I know you want more light rail but that doesn’t really excuse blindly saying false statements. A simple google query or really any effort by yourself would easily show that 3 hour break for maintenance is not that long and most transit systems have it much longer

      10. It’s really not that hard to run a bus the length of the 1 line overnight.

        I disagree. At various places it becomes awkward. You are also just reproducing a lot of the service that already exists. If you are trying to get from Rainier Valley to downtown which would you rather have: the 7 running more often or a bus running every hour on MLK (that serves Beacon Hill and SoDo along the way). The 7 is much faster and more importantly you want to consolidate the route to improve frequency.

        I’m not saying we shouldn’t try and plug a few holes, but Link is really nothing special in terms of its routing. Rainier Avenue is a stronger corridor than MLK. A night owl bus connecting downtown, Capitol Hill and the UW should stop more than once along the way. Furthermore, a lot of what makes Link strong can’t be easily mimicked. The train goes through a tunnel to get from Mount Baker to SoDo and serves Beacon Hill in that tunnel. A bus simply can’t do that.

        There are really only a couple weakness and both WL and I mentioned them (simultaneously):

        1) Add something for the north end (Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Northgate). It could maybe connect to the 67 or run express to downtown.

        2) Extend the 7 to SeaTac a few times late at night.

        The other weakness (that I wasn’t sure about) was that the 49 no longer through-routes with the 7. The 67, 49 and 7 are all separate routes. At a minimum, two of them should combine (late at night) to avoid transfers.

      11. @Al S,

        “ The cost of running each train later is incrementally more expensive than running a replacement bus…… closing the enclosed stations earlier saves on needed security staff.”

        LOL. Saying Link is marginally more expensive than a bus because it provides security is sort of like saying Link is more expensive because it is “safe”.

        And late at night and in the dark? The more security the better. I’d say Metro should provide more security, not that ST should provide less security just to “save money”.

        And one 4-car Link train with one operator carries as many people as 12 buses with 12 operators. Avoiding the cost of those additional 11 operators provides a lot of potential for additional security at roughly the same overall cost.

      12. @Lazarus. It isn’t just security. Mostly it is maintenance. This is why agencies all over the world close down for the night. While Cam made clear that he isn’t suggesting 24/7 operations the math gets more expensive as you approach it. A two hour window is much tougher to manage than a three hour window. A one hour window is even worse.

        As far as running the vehicles, it is cheaper to run one bus than to run one train. The savings from a train have to do with capacity. If New York ran buses in their subway system they would have to run a lot of buses. It would be way too expensive. Late at night that isn’t an issue which is why just running a bus (as a substitute for a train) has some merit.

        But it gets more complicated than that. We can’t ignore the existing bus network. It is one thing to extend the 7 to SeaTac late at night. It is another to run a bus down an inferior pathway (MLK) just because the train runs there during the day. Not only that but if you try and mimic the train pathway you run into all sorts of issues We’ve carved out a lot of right-of-way that only the trains can use. The buses simply can’t follow the same path. (Theoretically they can but then you’ve lost the ability to work on the tracks and it is just silly.)

        Check out the link that AJ added. The author puts it really well:

        Night buses are attractive for a number of reasons. The most important is that in the after hours there is so little surface traffic that buses can match the speed of rapid transit. Moreover, ridership is usually low enough that a bus has adequate capacity. Finally, surface transit can make small detours, for example to reach a common timed transfer, since transit is dependent on both scale and mode. During the day Vancouver has a bus grid, with most buses arriving every 8-10 minutes, but at night it has a half-hourly radial network with a timed transfer, and little relationship with the shape of the SkyTrain network.

        Got that? The best run transit system on the West Coast doesn’t run their trains late at night (even though they are automated). Nor do they have the buses try to mimic the best mass transit system on the West Coast and arguably the best mass transit system built in the last fifty years (SkyTrain). They create a different network for late-night riders. We do as well. It has holes — that would be nice to fix — but there are far more that don’t have anything to do with Link than those that do.

    6. A bus can’t go nearly as fast as Link serving all Link stations because buses have to follow the street grid, arterial speed limits, and traffic lights. Angle Lake to Lynnwood might take 50% longer. There is a bus route already, the Link Shuttle, used when segments of Link are blocked during the service day. It has never been used for the entire route that I can recall.

      From TIB to Rainier Beach it might take I-5 one exit from Southcenter Blvd to MLK, or Tukwila Intl Blvd to the Boeing Access Road to MLK.

      From Mt Baker to Stadium it would have to go up the steep McClellen Street, stop at Beacon Hill Station, go down the narrow steep Hogate Road viaduct, backtrack to SODO station, then north to Stadium.

      From Capitol Hill to U-District it would do like the 43 on John Street, 23rd, and Pacific Street. From U-District to Northgate it would do like the 67. From Northgate to Lynnwood it could be like the former 512, but staying off the freeway between stations it can’t adequately reach from it.

      A more direct alternative would be to abandon SODO and UW Stations when Link isn’t running. That’s why the alternative is various bus routes that each serve some of the stations, like the 49 (bypassing UW), 36 (bypassing SODO and Stadium), or 124 (bypassing everything between TIB and Stadium).

      Some countries do have some night bus routes that follow metro lines and serve all the stations as far as the bus route goes. In London I took a night bus following the Northern Line to my hostel at Stockwell. I liked that because it was hard to get lost, and I could see the station landmarks from the bus so I looked for the Stockwell roundel. Moscow and St Petersburg had a couple routes following metro lines, but I can’t remember if they were just replacements for closed metro segments, or if they also ran at night or on regular days. I only took them during the day. There was a flooded tunnel in St Petersburg that took hour half a line the day I arrived. (Later they got it working except one or two stations in the middle for several months.) The pseudo-metro buses had cumbersome destination boards; e.g., “st. m. Taganskaya, st. m. Proletarskaya, st. m. Volgogradsky Prospekt, st. m. Tekstikschiki, st. m. Kuzminki”, and on for twenty more, where “st. m.” meant “metro station”. Usually a bus route would have only one or two “st. m.” stops, but the ones that followed metro lines had all of them like that.

      Sound Transit around 2010 had a long-term potential goal of 24-hour Link service, but never pursued it after that.

      Running ST Express overnight would be an expense ST doesn’t seem to want, since that’s when the lowest ridership is.

      Metro is budget-limited and driver-limited, so adding a Link night shadow would mean substantial cuts to other routes. First it should fill in 15-minute midday/evening service on all core routes that don’t have it yet, before it thinks about a Link night shadow. The last countywide Metro levy to increase service hours failed; that’s why Seattle has its own levy. Metro stopped funding all Seattle night owl routes and the Eastside 280 in the 2014 cuts. The city council stepped up to save the Seattle ones, and then they were folded into the Seattle transit levy. I don’t remember if all South King County night owls except the A were dropped too for a while. (Now South King County has more night owl service than it did in 2014.)

      1. Yeah, I said the same thing up above. Various parts of the Link route don’t make sense as bus routes either because another bus is already doing something similar and better (the 7) or because it is impractical (Beacon Hill tunnel) .

      2. I think the 550 would make an excellent night owl route in the future world where the 2-line replaces it during the daytime. This would replace the late night Seattle-Bellevue connection lost by the elimination of the 280. Downtown Bellevue has enough of a residential population, I think such a route would get some use. If money allows it, owl service on RapidRide B is also worth considering, as it would function as a shadow for much of the 2 line, plus serve crossroads. Maybe in 2100, Kirkland will densify enough that owl service on the future K line will make sense, but probably not today.

        However, this entire discussion is academic because money is limited and routes are not running as frequently as they should during the daytime. In general, I’d rather see transit dollars go towards improved frequency during the earlier parts of the evening than adding service late at night.

      3. @ asdf:
        Interestingly, because the 1 and 2 line owl buses would meet in front of the ST building at Fifth and Jackson, there could be a radio hold there for transfers, with one route going further north and the other going down the SODO busway to SODO Station. That way, buses from SeaTac could stay on Rainier to Jackson or Dearborn.

        Certainly, it would be difficult to serve UW and Beacon Hill. Of the two, the UW station would be a minor diversion to make the Montlake loop. Beacon Hill is harder but I guess that SODO busway bus could double back up 6th and reach Beacon Hill by climbing the Holgate bridge. And terminating there.

        Your point raises another aspect though, and that is we don’t know when the first and last 2 Line train will be. Stay tuned!

      4. That raises an interesting point. If ST isn’t careful and the last trip on the full 2-line leaves half an hour before the last trip on the 550, that amounts to a service degradation, leaving no way to cross the lake on transit at 12:30 AM. Hopefully, the ST service planners will be smart enough to not let a detail like this unintentionally fall through the cracks.

      5. I don’t think Sound Transit does maintenence at night on the weekends. It would be great if they could run Link an hour longer on Friday to Sunday.

      6. That is a good point, Martin. It is quite possible that the time when a late night train would get the most riders is also the time when they are least likely to do maintenance.

  9. Does anyone know, out of all the bus routes Metro operates, which routes, during a snow event (not the Emergency Snow Network), are completely suspended? I know the entire G Line route is suspended during a snow event. What other routes are on that list?

    2. I don’t know the answer to your question Sam. It is quite possible that the G is the only one. But it is basically just semantics. The official snow route of the G is the 90. That is what the schedule says (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/g-line.html#route-map). It is what the service advisory says. In a lot of ways that is easier. A bus like the 2 has various levels to consider. Sometimes it runs on a snow route. Sometimes it runs on a snow route for part of the way (that is the case right now). Sometimes it gets cancelled completely and you have to take the 90.

      I think they would replace more buses with the 90 if they could do so but I don’t think they can. The 2 and 4 go to Queen Anne. Buses like the 3 and 12 (which I could see having the 90 as their snow route) run on Pike/Pine — a corridor they generally have more confidence in. Justifiably so, apparently, as buses are running fine there (from what I can tell).

  11. “Metro’s night owl network lacks the convenient regional connectivity that Link provides.”

    Metro doesn’t have a regional night owl network. The only Metro-funded night owls are the South King County ones and maybe the Seattle RapidRides. The rest of Seattle’s night owls are funded by Seattle’s transit levy and would go away if it decides to cancel them or it’s not renewed. The Eastside and Renton have no night owls and haven’t since the 280 was deleted in the 2014 recession cuts, which is also when Metro stopped funding the Seattle night owls.

    The South King County service seems to be based on equity, and early-morning airport workers Kent workers living in Kent, Auburn, Burien, Federal Way, Pierce County (ST Express 574), Seattle, and downtown Seattle transfers from the north.

  12. I just timed the westbound block on Pine Street between Bellevue and Melrose Aves. The block was full when the Bellevue light turned green for 13 seconds. It took at least 5 seconds for the first car at Melrose to clear the block. It took 10 seconds for all the cars to clear the block and some cars behind Bellevue to reach the block. That left only 3 seconds for cars/buses to move from Bellevue to Melrose with only new cars in front of them.

    THAT’S why it takes a bus two light cycles to get through each of those blocks.

    1. Just like the corridor of the 8, that corridor should have a lot more in the way of BAT lanes. Maybe they should turn it into a transit mall (like Third). It is a major transit corridor that is getting short changed.

    2. I’m wondering 1) if sdot still wants to extend the one way couplet idea on pike/pine and 2) would it be useful for buses/ the removal of bike lanes in the opposite direction.

      Perhaps might be a small interesting thing to write about. Though given it’s only 4 blocks from Bellevue to broadway to extend doesn’t seem too pressing

Comments are closed.