The Father of Parking Reform

UCLA Professor Donald Shoup (1938-2025), author of The High Cost of Free Parking, Parking and the City, and numerous articles, passed on Friday, February 7, at the age of 86. Donald Shoup was widely considered the the “father of parking reform” (Bloomberg CityLab). StreetsblogNYC gathered tributes to the man known affectionately by his graduate students as “Shoup Dogg”, a moniker he used for personal website. His work lives on in the Parking Reform Network. Hear Donald Shoup speak in a 2023 episode of The War on Cars podcast.

Special Election Results:

The most widely covered vote in Seattle, regarding how to fund Seattle’s Social Housing Developer (Prop 1A vs Prop 1B), is leaning toward Prop 1A, which would impose a new payroll tax on earners of $1 million or more annually. As of Tuesday night, King County had received just over 133,000 ballots, and counted just over 95,000 (71%). The campaigns reflected the classic business-versus-people polarity: the Prop 1A campaign was largely funded by small donations from Seattle residents (Real Change), while Prop 1B donations mostly came from large donors outside the city (The Stranger). Further, the Prop 1A campaign obtained emails revealing last-minute lobbying efforts to punt the proposition off the November ballot (PubliCola). Additional coverage by The Urbanist.

Local Transit & Streets:

Other Transit:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary:

This is an Open Thread.

63 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Donald Shoup (1938-2025)”

  1. Eastside Transit has a new DRLE testing video out. This one is interesting because it shows the tight integration of the various services and structures at MVS:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UrBDzWega3o

    Also, there is a scheduled reduction in Link service this weekend with shuttle buses providing service across downtown. Also single tracking at Shoreline North/185th Station.

    And we should be getting close to dead tow test on Full ELE . Progress!

    1. Should we expect additional weekend partial 1-Line closures in March, related to the Declaration of Emergency?

      Will we be ready to pass the (Men’s) Club World Cup transit test this coming June to ensure we get to hold onto the (Men’s Nation’s) World Cup in 2026?

      1. @Brent White,

        “Should we expect additional weekend partial 1-Line closures in March, related to the Declaration of Emergency?”

        Nope. Not a chance.

        The Declaration was just a bureaucratic tool to get a contract issued on an expedited basis, and the contract is just for a study. There is exactly zero chance the study will identify anything meaningful in just 2 weeks time. And there is no money in the contract to do infrastructure work anyhow. That would require a follow on contract.

        Of course currently scheduled work could be delayed by things like weather. But that is a different issue.

        “Will we be ready to pass the (Men’s) Club World Cup transit test this coming June to ensure we get to hold onto the (Men’s Nation’s) World Cup in 2026?”

        Funny. It is only been about 15 years since the Central Link starter line opened, but apparently people think Link is so key to local transit that the city can’t host a few soccer games unless Link is operating at 100% capacity. That is an amazing statement about how important rail has become to the local transportation ecosystem.

        And last I checked we still have our other transportation modes available. Ferries, cars, Uber, buses. They are all still there and will contribute to transportation around the World Cup. Heck, even RR-G might be operating in a reliable manner by then. Cross your fingers.

        But ST has a tough task ahead. Opening DRLE in May, opening Full ELE by the end of the year, and hopefully opening FWLE by June of 2026. That is a lot of work. Hopefully ST gets it all done.

      2. @ Lazarus:

        You didn’t mention the Pinehurst Station opening as a fourth new opening.

        However, given the current low ridership numbers for both Shoreline stations (each about 1,000 boardings a day) with both stations having massive parking structures, I don’t see the Pinehurst boarding adding many more riders on Link. It may be that almost all of the additional boardings at Pinehurst will be offset by boarding decreases at the surrounding stations.

        I think it’s clear that the entire Lynnwood Link segment appears to carry only about 18K average weekday riders. It’s a far cry from the 47K to 55K proclaimed in ST documents (for 2026). Surely the 2 Line opening offering better frequency should help increase the numbers (along with the Pinehurst opening) but I think it will take some unlikely major travel market changes to get to even the 30K level.

      3. @Al S,

        I didn’t mention the opening of the pedestrian bridge at North Shoreline/148th St Station either, and that actually is a major improvement. Fast, convenient, and safe bike and ped access to a real station like 148th St Station actually matters.

        “ It may be that almost all of the additional boardings at Pinehurst will be offset by boarding decreases at the surrounding stations.”

        That is exactly what the original ST ridership analysis showed – No net ridership gain to the system from Putumpkin Station. But we built it anyhow. Politics always wins over data. Just look at what is happening nationally.

        And I wouldn’t read too much into the LLE ridership numbers until we get at least a few consecutive months of clean data. The holidays are always a strange time for transit ridership, and there are too many scheduled disruptions to Link service right now to be able to determine a trend line.

        But hey, I look forward to the opening of DRLE, Full ELE , and FWLE! And also to the opening of the 148th St pedestrian bridge. It’s going to be awesome.

      4. “I don’t see the Pinehurst boarding adding many more riders on Link. It may be that almost all of the additional boardings at Pinehurst will be offset by boarding decreases at the surrounding stations.”

        So what. It gives Seattle’s fourth-largest urban center better access to Link, and another one. The problem was leaving them out in the first place.

      5. It may be that almost all of the additional boardings at Pinehurst will be offset by boarding decreases at the surrounding stations.

        That is true of the 148th Station and 185th Station. The only major increase was Lynnwood as the people who used to take the bus from Snohomish County now take the train. Mountlake Terrace went up a little bit (for the same reason). Are you saying there shouldn’t have been any stations between Northgate and Snohomish County?

        By the way this will be typical for most of the extensions. Where will the ridership in Tacoma Link come from? Mostly folks switching from the buses. I don’t expect an increase in overall transit ridership. If they run express buses from Tacoma to downtown then Link ridership will go up a tiny amount. Same with West Seattle Link. Everett Link might add some riders but there are so few stations and Everett is so small it doesn’t really matter.

        The only way you will get a big increase in ridership in the area is if you build something that is much better for a lot of people. Ballard Link comes close but it is possible they screw up the transfers and relatively few people use it. Probably the best chance for a major increase in transit ridership is if we improve the buses.

      6. It is only been about 15 years since the Central Link starter line opened, but apparently people think Link is so key to local transit

        That is because the system is now based on it. Buses no longer go in the bus tunnel. Even when there is a full Link outage the buses have to run on the street. Metro has truncated pretty much all of their buses from the north. So has Community Transit. Sound Transit hasn’t but those buses don’t have that many riders. Metro (and ST) will truncate all of their buses from the east as soon as East Link makes it over the lake. Yes, those buses can start-up again if there is an outage but again they run into issues downtown (since they can’t use the tunnel). They also lack funding (obviously). We don’t have a lot of buses and drivers sitting around ready to try and recreate the world of 2019 (when the buses shared space with the trains) let alone the world of 2008 (when it was just buses).

        We’ve put a lot of money into the light rail system and our system is very dependent on it (as is should be) .

      7. Just look at what is happening nationally.

        Yep, your team of suburbanistas is winning big.

      8. think it’s clear that the entire Lynnwood Link segment appears to carry only about 18K average weekday riders

        And that is being generous. For the four stations the last three months, here are the combined boardings:

        October: 7,010
        December: 5,830
        January: 6,375

        (I selected each station on this page: https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership). If you double these numbers it is still quite a bit less than 18K more like around 13K. But that isn’t net. Northgate is down just about as much as Lynnwood added (suggesting it is mostly just people switching). Of course the numbers are volatile (they vary quite a bit month to month) so it is hard to say. I think there was a surge of excitement to take Link from the north but now that things are settled in not that many people are taking it. It will probably go up in the summer though.

      9. Ross, you are very right. If the most likely to succeed of the pushes into low-density suburbs is running at 1/3 of the projections, what makes anyone think that doing more of the same will be better? Yes, there will be some “choice” riders between Seattle and Bellevue because the train is nicer than the bus. But it won’t be more than 20% I’d bet. The folks on the train will be folks who are on the buses now, by and large.

        The Stub has proven to be good and I expect that Redmond will boost things further. But, really, who wants to pay Bellevue prices for an apartment along the Link tracks instead of living in a real city and taking the bus? I don’t expect a huge wave of new riders when the cross-lake service opens. There’s just way too much “nothing” between the houses on the East Side.

      10. “So what. It gives Seattle’s fourth-largest urban center better access to Link…”

        Exactly how much “urbanity” is 1/4 mile walking distance of Pinehurst Station?

      11. “I don’t expect a huge wave of new riders when the cross-lake service opens.”

        I actually do! I tend to think that most other extensions will be like you say — just not this one.

        Here are some reasons:

        1. UW. While buses go to UW from the Eastside, many are still driving to camps. That’s partly because the campus is big. Frequencies at non-peak times is also an issue. It’s a major transit service upgrade for evening classes. I expect more UW students on Link.

        2. Medical offices. East Link is walkable from many Bellevue medical offices. Most in Seattle require a transfer. So I expect people when offered may choose medical services next to East Link stations.

        3. Shopping. The only Macy’s reasonably close to Link now is Bellevue Square. Seattle Macy’s fans will head to Bellevue.

        4. Capitol Hill nightlife. Eastside residents avoid Capitol Hill nightlife often because it’s a trek from the 550/554 and evening bus frequencies aren’t great. Link offers frequent all day service. There is some nightlife in Bellevue too — and Link may be a catalyst to growing interest among Bellevue club owners.

        5. Microsoft commuting, I could see some riders using Microsoft Connector buses now switching to Link. The frequency will be just too good to ignore.

        6. Sightseeing and conferences. When people visit here for work or fun, they look for things to do that don’t require driving. Many are hesitant to ride an infrequent bus, but frequent rail that offers a scenic ride across Lake Washington is going to be enticing for a visitor.

        If full East Link doesn’t get a surge, than no other extension will either.

      12. “So what. It gives Seattle’s fourth-largest urban center better access to Link…”

        “Exactly how much “urbanity” is 1/4 mile walking distance of Pinehurst Station?”

        I was referring to Lake City.

      13. “Yes, there will be some “choice” riders between Seattle and Bellevue because the train is nicer than the bus. But it won’t be more than 20% I’d bet. The folks on the train will be folks who are on the buses now, by and large.”

        We’re building it for the long term. We should have built Forward Thrust in the 1970s. Even if the initial ridership boost is only 20%, it will be integral to how the Eastside and Seattle grow and evolve over the next several decades. Look at all the cars on the bridges: that shows there’s a lot of interaction between the two. We want to get more of that onto transit, and allow people to do trips that aren’t feasible currently. It’s like San Francisco and Oakland: you need high-capacity transit between them because they’re so large and so close.

        “who wants to pay Bellevue prices for an apartment along the Link tracks instead of living in a real city and taking the bus?”

        People who have an adversion to Seattle or are afraid of it. Or who perceive the Eastside as cleaner, more contemporary, and more upscale. A lot of Eastsiders are like that.

      14. “who wants to pay Bellevue prices for an apartment along the Link tracks instead of living in a real city and taking the bus?”

        The simplest reason is to be closer to work. If you work at Microsoft, it’s a much shorter commute from the Spring District than from Capitol Hill, even though both are along the same Link line. Then, there’s the case where may you work in downtown Seattle, but your spouse works at Microsoft.

      15. I’ll add one more factor to adding riders to full East Link: Judkins Park Station.

        There are 2K-3K new apartments there. It’s a great location between the two Downtowns. Riders there using Route 7 or 106 are going to switch to Link for most travel.

        So if all you’re doing is adding up the riders crossing the lake, you still won’t have counted those riders coming from Judkins Park headed towards Downtown Seattle and further north.

      16. By the time East Link gets across the water we will know how many people are using the train for trips just within the East Side. Somewhere between five and ten thousand is my guess.

        For trips across the lake I would start by looking at the buses. There are two periods to consider: now and when the buses had peak ridership. Most of the buses in our system peaked right before the pandemic. But some of the buses to the East Side peaked a few years before. (This would include the Judkins Park stop as well.) My guess is ridership will be somewhere between the two points. A while back I looked at the buses that went across I-90 (as well as the 545 since it is going away). From what I can tell these are the buses, their highest ridership, when the highest ridership occurred (in parenthesis) and highest ridership in the last year:

        East Link estimation
        550 — 10,800 (2016) — 4,417
        545 — 9,727 (2015) — 5,151
        554 — 4,100 (2017) — 2,927
        111 — 900 (2019) — 308
        114 — 500 (2019) — 0
        212 — 2,800 (2019) — 480
        214 — 1,200 (2018) — 0
        216 — 1,000 (2019) — 0
        217 — 200 (2019) — 0
        218 — 1,400 (2019) — 316
        219 — 900 (2019) — 0

        This is quite a range (roughly 34,000 to 14,000). If I had to pick a number I would say halfway in between or somewhere around 24,000 additional riders once East Link gets to Seattle.

      17. @ Ross:

        I agree that 24K is in the ballpark.

        There are people who will switch to Judkins Park Link from a Metro bus into Downtown Seattle or will switch their Link transfer point from the 1 Line to Judkins Park. So the East Link numbers won’t be solely those crossing the Lake. This number may be only a few more thousand but it will be an addition. Maybe 27K total?

        Line 1 will likely lose half of its boardings north of CID to Line 2 since the service frequencies will be mostly identical except maybe at peak. So it will be interesting if ST will spin the 2 Line as having 55-60K boardings, with 30K of those siphoned from existing 1 Line riders.

        And since ST does not post average boardings by direction any more, it’s not obvious what share of 2026 2 Line ridership could be called “East Link”. I would probably tally all the East Link station boardings, multiply by 2 for those getting off then reducing the total by double counted trips (trips the both start and end at an East Link station). That last number is hard to pinpoint but judging from ELSL data it’s probably going to be about 5-10K.

  2. Prop 1B was a mess. It promised no new funding, just moving some funding out of existing programs to a new program that the electeds seemed not particularly excited about.

    Labor backing of the citizens initiative, Prop 1A, may have been sine qua non.

    I doubt the current council will get out of the way of 1A’s implementation, considering more renters in Seattle to be a demographic threat.

    Regardless, the reality will continue to be that most new housing will be privately-developed and privately-owned. The existence of more subsidized housing comes nowhere near to negating that reality.

    Zoning continues to be the largest hurdle to building new housing at scale. If the groups critical of public housing want more private housing, they ought to back major upzoning and abandon the mayor’s One Seattle set in amber Plan.

  4. I understand why operators will continue to want key-controlled restrooms at transit centers. They tend to be safer and cleaner than public restrooms. Making these restrooms available to the public is generally a non-starter. It is even more so now.

    This is one more area in which value engineering comes back to bite us and the agencies. Every station that serves as a bus layover needs to have restroomS available for the employees of all the agencies involved with that station.

    But, they also ought to have restrooms available for the passengers, that are in addition to the employee restrooms. Keeping the public restrooms clean is a huge challenge, I know.

    1. I think the main issue with bathrooms open to the public is that you need to have the staff secure them. It is really the labor costs that is the issue. This is true everywhere there is a public bathroom but the costs generally scale. The busier your station the less expensive it is (per rider) to maintain the bathrooms. The problem is that are stations aren’t that busy. Basically we are stretched too thin. It is one of the many ridership-cycle issues.

      1. I get that, but other public agencies seem to be able to provide public restrooms just fine. After all, public parks have restrooms, as do public libraries, as do airports and Amtrak stations. What’s special about transit stations that makes this so difficult?

    2. Isn’t the obvious solution to charge for the toilet to pay for the upkeep? Maybe that is politically unpopular but it’s fairly common in the rest of the world, and the alternative is no toilets at all.

      1. Yes on both points. It is the obvious solution but they don’t want to do it because it is politically unpopular.

    3. Here’s a potentially politically viable solution: Require tapping an activated ORCA card or scanning an activated ticket from the machine to unlock the bathroom. I expect most fare-paying riders to take decent care of the restroom. Not sure how well it will work in practice but I think it’s worth a pilot program.

      1. Combining this with another comment re: paying for bathrooms, treat bathroom entry as just another bus ride. So you get the normal transfer period, etc.

        If you just got off a bus/train, etc. you get the free entry (transfer) into the bathroom. If you’re waiting for your first bus/train of the trip, you pay at the bathroom, and the bus fare is free (transfer).

      2. I like the idea, not only for excluding non-riders, but also because it creates a log of who was in the restroom when, so if somebody trashes it, they can no who did it and revoke that person’s bathroom privileges.

      4. Atlanta does this at at least some MARTA stations – the one time I availed myself of it, the restroom was a disaster to the point of being unusable. That could have just been bad timing but unless there’s dedicated cleaning staff nearby or making a circuit of a few stations throughout operating hours, once it gets bad it’s bad (this speaks also to the labor cost issue). You’d also want some way to report issues – this could be via app or the like, but perhaps just having stations staffed would be more beneficial for security reasons both inside and outside the restrooms.

        I liked the transit card access idea there and I like it here, but there is still a not insignificant logistics cost to providing public restrooms (I’d honestly like to see more public facilities in general, staffed and maintained as in much of the world – hell, just having someone there makes it far less likely that damage or misuse occurs – but again, even at minimum wage as a transitional job, that costs money.)

    4. Restroom access is always a complicated issue. If it was easy, transit agencies would have implemented an approach years ago.

      It is truly about maintenance, cleanliness and personal safety.

      I see two general ways to approach the problem (but expect any solution to evolve uniquely in each local context):

      1. Public-private partnerships. This would be something like making part of a tenant’s commercial lease agreement the restrooms at a low or zero rent while assigning to them control and upkeep of restrooms in exchange for a good lease deal in general. I would call that something like a “transit restrooms partner” program. The program could be managed and adjusted on a case-by-case basis depending on the upkeep difficulty at a particular location.

      2. Technology. We are at the point where cams and remote access control are possible. I could see some app based ior kiosk based approach (or both) to grant admittance — with someone remotely able to identify each user before entering and having the ability to screen out those that abuse restrooms in the past. I would call that a “transit restrooms control center” approach.

      Finally, I would just like to mention that there is a public health aspect here. Not enabling easy restroom access can result in a general risk to having biological contaminants elsewhere around a transit facility or streetscape.

      I was at a bus shelter recently where there was clearly something stinky smeared all over the shelter concrete floor. Ewwwww! It’s easy to blame the situation on poor human personal hygiene and abuse of public facilities — but I have to wonder if this was a “last resort” situation for that person. Heck it could have been a big dog.

      1. Recently, I have experienced human feces twice in the Pioneer Sq elevator at Third and Yesler and once a man urinating directly on the elevator door. He confessed that he had no other option. I know this is a challenging neighborhood but we can’t allow one of only two vertical accesses from the street to the Mezzanine to actually become a public restroom.

    5. @Brent White,

      “ Every station that serves as a bus layover needs to have restrooms available…..”

      I assume by “station” you actually mean “Link station”, which is OK as far as it goes. But why just Link stations?

      All Metro transit centers and Park&Rides should also have restrooms, as should all major transfer stops on our RapidRide lines.

      Fundamentally this is an equity issue. Why should Link riders get clean, safe, and readily available restrooms, but bus riders don’t? Equity would suggest that both groups of transit riders should have equal access to restrooms.

      And bus riders probably need bathrooms more than Link riders since both the wait times and trip times with buses tend to be longer. Because if you really need to go, and go NOW!, then that long, slow, bumpy, bus ride could be “painful”.

    1. It’s a fairly comprehensive summary of the situation, Troy. Kudos for writing your piece!

      In addition to going with the No Build, I am reasonably sure that ST also has the choice of merely suspending the project development as a Final EIS for the two years needed to hone how to use the funds more wisely. After all it’s really just an impacts study and not a proactive systems planning study. Urban rail projects across the country get paused before breaking ground all the time!

      Consider too how ST introduced a new alternative (and called it “preferred) to address the CID mess AFTER the Draft EIS was published for WSBLE in 2021. Had ST merely finalized the Draft EIS alternatives we would be at a very different place on that project.

      The step that seems to be missing here is that systems planning study. TDLE began with what was a predefined corridor segment and a commitment to build stations and track to existing Link trains. This very approach forces the outcome in the Draft EIS because it so limits the alternatives that can be considered. It’s pretty much akin to writing vehicle specs in such a way that only one or two vendors can bid — and the alternatives become very cosmetic or minor like they are with the current TDLE Draft EIS.

      And to close, I like how you question the East Tacoma Station in particular. I can see how its inclusion may be required to satisfy the Tribe. Rather than drop it, I would call it a “second Tacoma station” and propose it to be moved to west or northwest of Tacoma Dome — instead of East of Tacoma Dome as it is now. It surely would get more boardings if it was moved to serve UWT and Downtown better and be the end station!

      1. Helpful comments, thank you.

        Regarding East Tacoma Station, I am aware of no government that has explicitly requested or required it. While the Puyallup Tribe did express support for “a light rail corridor” from its complex to Tacoma Dome Station as part of Sound Transit’s Long Range Plan update in 2014—which is possibly an origin story for the station—East Tacoma Station does not accomplish that. Besides, if it was not built I suspect it would have virtually zero impact on the Tribe’s business model and ongoing development plans. In fact, it may avoid significant traffic and parking impacts in the area, of which the Tribe has pointedly expressed concern about.

        The Tribe is hopefully benefitting from a superior station location in Fife. Its complex in East Tacoma would be better served by enhanced local transit, in my opinion. Most people will continue to drive.

  7. Hey. DRLE opens May 10th. It’s time for a countdown clock!

    This is going to be a huge year for transit regionally. Can’t wait.

  8. Sound Transit just released their update on ST3 cost-saving measures.

    One of their proposals involve “optimizing” SODO Station by reducing vertical conveyances and shrinking the station footprint to save an estimated $100-130 million (page 18). However, since SODO is planned as a key transfer point for West Seattle Link, cutting down on escalators and elevators might create headaches for riders. They’re also considering converting it to a single island, which would transfers much easier, though that’s currently sitting low on their priority list (pg. 12).

    While it’s clear Sound Transit needs to find efficiencies – they’re evaluating over 475 cost-saving opportunities across their projects – the SODO station changes might need a closer look given the station’s important role in the system.

    https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%20Capital%20Delivery%20Programmatic%20%26%20Project-level%20workplan%202-13-25.pdf

    1. thats good to know they are actually serious about checking for inefficiencies. looks like theres some moderately hanging fruit savings that could save 100 million dollars each for around half a billion total.

      it does seem like most of the saving are outweighed by tunneling rather than elevated alignment though.

      1. There’s some exciting stuff in there, but count me as wholly unsurprised they barely found 5% savings within their search for “efficiencies”.

        Not holding my breath for the 40% savings they need to achieve to afford WSLE as currently planned.

      2. It wouldn’t surprise me though if they parley the savings into a major political victory which allows construction to continue. This is common for the agency. They delay a project five years then built it in three and then talk about how it was built early. Same goes for the cost. Under the new budget! (Even though it is higher than the original one.)

    2. ST is such a reactionary agency. They are looking for efficiencies now? Shouldn’t they be considering them every step of the way?

      For a relatively small example consider the Pinehurst Station. It would have been cheaper to build it with the rest of Lynnwood Link but they rejected that (likely because they didn’t want to delay the funding of other projects). It would have been ideal to have it straddle 130th. But instead they decided to build it just to the north. Cost may have been an issue but it is also possible they didn’t want to deal with shutting down more of the street. As it turns out though, the original cost estimates were wrong. They didn’t measure the slope of the hillside correctly. Thus it is quite possible that straddling 130th would not only lead to a better station but a cheaper station. From a cost perspective there is an advantage to having the station north of 130th. It means that just about everyone will approach from the south (as there is nothing to the north). The station is fairly simple with side platforms. Thus you can get by with one set of stairs, elevators and escalators on each side. That’s it. But instead they added another set to the north — where no one will be. Thus they didn’t even take advantage of the cost saving possibilities that come from building to the north. It is if they never really looked at the station and how it was going to be used (as a bus-train interface).

      In the grand scheme of things this is a tiny amount of money. But I can’t help but think it is an example of the cost problems within the agency. You have the “measure-once, cut-twice” design process. You have design flaws (that are worse for riders) but are supposed to save money and when all is said and done it isn’t clear you have. You have an unnecessary order of construction that pushes cost higher. You have an overbuilt station.

  9. So now the truth comes out. What really delayed the Revive I-5 Ship Canal resurfacing project, which was supposed to start this March, was a demand from the City of Seattle and Metro that WSDOT provide $39 million in mainly bus transit projects:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-wants-39m-to-ease-traffic-mess-on-delayed-i-5-bridge-project/

    This is on top of a $16 million pre-existing shortfall, for a total shortfall of about $55 million. Just for a resurfacing project!

    And, of course, the delay increases the chances that the $16 million shortfall will grow substantially. But I guess that is a problem for another day.

    And Community Transit is right on this one. The solution to mobility issues during this period is to look to Link. LR will be the only mode unaffected by the gridlock on the local streets, so adding capacity on Link is more effective than adding bus capacity. In addition to being cheaper.

    Waiting until Full ELE is in operation will definitely solve the capacity problem, as would more gap trains or a scheduled overlay.

    But they just have to get this done.

    1. “Waiting until Full ELE is in operation will definitely solve the capacity problem, as would more gap trains or a scheduled overlay.”

      I see three different notable dates. In chronological order they are:

      1. The date that trains can be operated in their own power from East OMF into the DSTT.

      2. The date when 2 Line service simulation starts and riders are using 2 Line trains north of Downtown Seattle (but not yet allowed to cross Lake Washington).

      3. Full ELE is open.

      Getting to the first one will enable more service on the line. But the second is the time when the mitigation trains will definitely be operating. I don’t think waiting for the third date is as impactful to start the project as starting it around the second date.

      1. @Al S,

        We should see the first dead tow test of an LRV on Full ELE in the next few weeks, theoretically self powered testing will start in 2Q, and Full ELE should open for revenue service near the end of the year. Assuming no surprises of course.

        Unfortunately none of those dates support using the 2-Line for congestion relief for any I-5 project that begins this March. Adding gap trains or a scheduled overlay would, or just bumping the base frequency also would, but that means ST would need to find more distributed storage space. And that is not an easy task.

        As CT suggests, the solution really does lay with improving 1-Link thru-put, even if just temporarily. Reducing spare and gap ratios might allow small increases in frequency, and it might also be possible to find additional storage space on FWLE, as that line is already running powered LRV’s at least as far as just south of KDM Station.

        So there are a few options that are probably worth investigating for providing more 1-Link capacity. ST just needs to work with WSDOT to determine the best path forward, and then figure out who funds it.

  11. So this caught me off guard a bit yesterday:

    I walked from the market to Symphony Station to catch Link. Normally when I do that I access the station from Second Ave using the Benaroya Hall entrance. It’s a nice, mainly level entrance that takes you directly to the mezzanine of the station. And for the last 25 years or so the entrance has been marked with signage that says “Metro Tunnel”.

    The “Metro Tunnel” signage never spelled out the station name, it just read “Metro Tunnel”. And the odd signage even remained after ST took full ownership of the tunnel and converted it to Light Rail. Just the words “Metro Tunnel”.

    But no! “Metro Tunnel” is now gone and replaced with blockier, less artistic letters that spell out “Symphony Station”. Obviously “Symphony Station” is more descriptive, but after 25+ years I found it a bit disorienting.

    So one more vestige of the old Metro bus tunnel era is gone. Replaced by something more descriptive and more functional, but gone nonetheless the less. I’ll sort of miss it.

    1. This news fills me with despair. Dow Constantine is the one person who has done the most to screw up Link.

      1. @Christopher Cramer,

        I actually like Dow. I find him to be a reasonably intelligent sentient being. But I do not think he is right for this job, and I worry about what could happen to the agency under his leadership.

        I worry about a rush to get the region committed to a flawed WSLE plan. But I also worry about any efforts to get ST involved in the proposed Civic Campus Redevelopment. The firewalls between KC and ST budgets need to be maintained. I’m not sure Dow would do that.

        And bottom line, the ST CEO position needs strong technical leadership, not political leadership. Sparrman is such a leader, but at age 70 he is taking his name off the table. And rightfully so.

        Dow is a political beast, not a technical one. He is not the right fit for this particular job.

      2. I agree Christopher. To be fair, ST3 was always going to be challenging. The obvious things had been built (e. g. downtown to the UW) and Sound Transit has never been good at the not-so-obvious things. But prioritizing West Seattle Link over every potential project in the city is just really bad planning. Then turning around and insisting we need another tunnel — thus degrading transit through downtown — is another huge mistake. If the tunnel actually served someplace different (like First Hill) then it would be worthwhile (and normal). But he was adamant about how the new tunnel should be very close to the old one. It is quite likely that Link will end up being one of the worst projects in the world in terms of value added for the money spent. A lot of that is Constantine’s fault.

      1. @Mike Orr,

        I would love to be wrong, but I fear that I am not.

        And the vacant KC Exec position is another opportunity for our local leaders to put their thumb on the scale for that position too. But that succession plan doesn’t worry me as much.

        Inslee really F’d things up when he went for that 3rd term.

      2. He appointed most of the board members, why would they not vote for him. It’s kind of a large conflict of interest

        Harrell and nine other members are appointed by Dow Constantine. He’s virtually guaranteed the position

    4. I’d only be OK with Dow as CEO if he gave up his West Seattle Link obsession and vowed to make downtown transfers shorter than the CID/N, CID/S ones. Since he’s championing both of those, I’m afraid that with Dow as CEO we’d get the worst possible Link. But then, with Dow no longer on the board, it would no longer be his decision. Hmm, what would he think of Balducci on the board sunk his West Seattle Link and CID/N, and he had to implement an alternative.

      Several things I don’t undestand about this.

      Why would Dow want the job? He’s county executive, and for a long time wanted to be governor. Being a CEO of one organization seems like a step down, and less interesting than overseeing everything in the county. And the position seems like a disaster ready to break a CEO.

      How can the salary go from $375 to $675 just four years? That’s far faster than inflation, and 4-6 times an average $100-150K tech person. Maybe the compensation is because of the small chance of success of the position?

      Of course, I still don’t understand how any CEO salary can be above $200K. They seem way overvalued.

    5. I don’t think Constantine has the inside track given everything that is going on. These are not happy times for Sound Transit. It is like giving your assistant coach the job after the team ended up in last place.

      There appears to be pushback from all over. Somers (Snohomish County Exec) isn’t thrilled with what is going on in Seattle (and his role in it). Seattle Subway opposes him. They (and others) have not only called into question his qualifications but have called hiring him unethical. Even Lazarus — one of the most pro-ST people around — doesn’t think he is a good fit.

      For the board to appoint him would be very dangerous from a political standpoint. Any failure and the board (not Constantine) gets blamed for it. They get accused of not only incompetence but being unethical. Suddenly a side gig (Sound Transit) throws a monkey wrench into any political ambitions the member had for the future. If ST was doing much better at designing and delivering projects then this might be considered a safe choice. Now it is the opposite.

      1. For once I agree with Ross. ST is staring down the barrel of some really serious affordability issues. And some serious operational reliability issues. Dow has been chair or vice chair for the past decade. He oversaw the hiring of two failed CEOs and the agency’s subpar performance under the tenures (being charitable). It’s a record he owns. And if the board hires him, then they own it too when all the messy details come pouring out.

  13. He’s not a shoe-in. The story is actually encouraging. The pool is “Dow and four anonymous industry CEOs”. That is a very good sign. The fact of him being named in the story and the other aren’t means the knives are out for him. And rightly so. ST needs a do over. And if the board is serious about getting good results, they need to bring in an actual pro who’s done this successfully elsewhere. Neither Rogoff nor Timm met that test. Neither has Dow, he’s just made things worse.

    1. I hope you are right.

      I do like Dow, but he is not the right fit for this job. ST needs someone that can get back to technical basics on these projects.

Comments are closed.