80 days until the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opens.

Transit & Streets:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread. Are you interested in contributing to the Blog? Contact us.

66 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Road Use Fee”

  1. Thanks for the countdown clock. Great to see!

    But in other news, there was another shooting on a Metro bus. Two people were shot on RR-F. Three people fled the scene and are still at large, hopefully not riding Metro like the last guy was:

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/2-hurt-in-shooting-on-king-county-metro-bus/

    Passenger safety is just as important as operator safety. Metro needs to improve security. Period.

    Also, we should know more about the search for a new ST CEO sometime relatively soon. One thing about it being “known” that Dow was being greased for the spot is that it gives his opponents an opportunity to plan in advance. We will see how successful they are. Supposedly the other 4 candidates are highly qualified, so hopefully Dow has some good competition at least.

    And the $39M Seattle and Metro are demanding for the Revive I-5 bus service is a non-starter. The money would be much better spent on additional Link service, since Link won’t become just more BST (Buses Stuck in Traffic).

    1. Yeah, I noticed the crickets about yet another transit violence incident. All the money spent on transit investments only to allow buses to become lawless zones is a huge disservice to all tax payers and will continue to keep people away from public transit that would otherwise use it. I absolutely wouldn’t blame people at this point for choosing to drive instead given the lack of security and problems with gangs and mentally unstable people that plague the system and it’s stops.

      1. @Paul Ventresca,

        In my humble opinion, you can’t advocate for improved transit without also advocating for improved transit security. The two go together, and improved security needs to at least be discussed.

        I’m about to head out to catch LR right now. When I get to the station I know for a fact that there will be security guards there, and maybe even on the train too. It’s a good thing.

      2. @Paul Ventresca,

        Link security report.

        I’m at the station now waiting for my train. There are 2 Fare Ambassadors at the station entrance, 4 Fare Ambassadors on the platform, and 2 full security officers on the platform too.

        Obviously the Fare Ambassadors aren’t security, but they are tied in to actual security and add an additional layer of protection.

        And my train is here!

      3. Yeah, I noticed the crickets about yet another transit violence incident.

        It was in the ‘A’ section of the Seattle Times. Lazarus linked to it.

      4. I didn’t see the Seattle Times article regarding the shooting until this morning. We’re all-volunteer, folks. Anyone can send in stories of potential interest to our contact address.

        Violence is always a tragedy. Based on the story, it doesn’t seem like there’s much else to say. The people who were hurt are being treated and the perpetrators got away. I guess if folks want to pay for an unarmed security guard on every bus, that’s something to consider for a county-wide transit measure.

        While it’s worth acknowledging that there are public safety issues that affect all public spaces (transit included), and it’s nice that ST can afford to staff its handful of station with security which appear to be effective at increasing rider comfort, Lazarus’ consistent derision of buses (specifically Metro) and adoration of rail is tiring.

      5. To clarify, what I mean is that I think it’s harmful to imply that incidents like this shooting happen on Metro buses because of some implied lack of interest in rider safety/security. It’s simply and obviously much more difficult (and completely unreasonable) to put a security guard on every bus and/or at every bus stop.

        Juxtaposing the security systems of Link and Metro without discussing the clear differences between the two systems is not advocacy for improved transit – in fact, I think it’s harmful. Why not propose realistic improvements instead of “a cop on every bus” as some have proposed? Or, perhaps, simply recognize the difficulty of policing the small capsule of public space that is a bus?

      6. @Nathan Dickey,

        “Juxtaposing the security systems of Link and Metro without discussing the clear differences between the two systems is not advocacy for improved transit – in fact, I think it’s harmful”

        That is complete and total BS.

        Juxtapositioning the two systems and highlighting each’s success and failures is EXACTLY what we should be doing at a time like this. You don’t learn to be better if you don’t understand where you are doing well and where you are coming up short, and how other systems might be doing things better.

        When faced with a serious safety problem you don’t just hide your head in the sand and say “oh, it’s not fair to make comparisons”. That is a recipe for continued failure.

        Safety on our public transit systems is a serious problem. All of our systems need to do better. Both for the operators and for the passengers. There can be no exceptions. Safety first.

        And this happened two days ago. The incident is well known. But why it matters is that there are still three suspects out there. After operator Shawn Yim was killed the suspect was also free for several days. He was eventually caught riding a Metro bus. Hopefully history isn’t repeating itself right now.

        And, yes, the problem for Metro is harder than it is for ST. But that is not a free pass to do nothing.

      7. It’s not do-nothing. It’s apples and oranges.

        You’re clearly supportive of ST’s solution to put security guards at every station you use, and security guards on most trains. Do you think that’s a reasonable solution for Metro? If so, how much service do you think Metro should cut to afford security guards on most of its buses?

      8. @Nathan Dickey,

        “ You’re clearly supportive of ST’s solution to put security guards at every station you use”

        Of course I am. And not just security at the stations I “use”, but at all stations in the system. First and foremost transit should be safe. It’s actually one of the key principles of Jarrett Walker.

        Obviously Metro has a tougher security problem than ST, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t strive to do better. Because clearly the current situation could be improved.

      10. We can’t stop school shootings with 1000 kids gathered in one place. How are you supposed to stop a bus shooting with 10 people gathered?

        It is not possible

      11. @Confused,

        First and foremost, transit needs to be safe. It is not appropriate to just declare it to be a difficult problem and then just do nothing.

        I’d start with increased security and better fare enforcement.

      12. How much should Metro increase security, and how much service should it cut to pay for security personnel?

    2. What “additional Link service” will $39 million pay for? It’s costing billions just to get to West Seattle and Ballard… and extra $39 million is pocket change.

      1. @Matt,

        Operations. Just a small increase in frequency adds a huge amount of capacity. Every 4-car train is equal to about 12 Metro buses, and only takes one additional operator.

        It’s a bargain compared to adding 12 Metro buses with 12 operators. And the thru-put with the bus is actually lower since they will be mainly sitting in traffic.

        It’s telling that WSDOT said “No” and is waiting until Full ELE is open. At that point we will have double the capacity on Link in the north end. That is a lot of capacity to deal with, and at very low cost.

        [Ed: Corrected WSDOT reference per author’s intention.]

    3. Traffic death on 167 (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/deadly-crash-in-renton-shuts-down-northbound-lanes-of-highway-167/). The state patrol needs to improve security. Period.

      All that money spent on road investments only for the roads to become lawless zones is a huge disservice to all tax payers and will continue to keep people away from using them. I absolutely wouldn’t blame people at this point for choosing to stay home given the lack of security and problems with gangs and mentally unstable people that drive.

      See how ridiculous that is? Basing decisions on anecdotes — however terrible — is not a sensible way to live. Quite often it leads to making the wrong decision. Folks read about an airplane crash so they drive (which is a lot riskier). They avoid living in the city because it is “dangerous” and move to suburbs where they get all sorts of health problems because they rarely walk anywhere.

      In general the buses are getting safer, not more dangerous (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjIl3SK3YWI). Metro has improved security (https://www.masstransitmag.com/safety-security/press-release/53098350/king-county-metro-transit-king-county-metro-continuing-to-improve-security-presence-on-transit-systems). Transit is just part of the region which unfortunately is violent (like most of America). There are going to be various incidents in a county this large. We were actually making progress in this country until the pandemic.

      But it is tough to blame Metro for these types of problems. For example the City of Seattle has been playing wack-a-mole with the open-air drug dealers (and the violence that surrounds them). As a result a lot of them migrated to 12th & Jackson. This happens to be close to a bus stop. Is that Metro’s fault? Of course not. Metro responded and closed the stop. This is a major inconvenience. Should they be out there patrolling the stop instead? Maybe, but that means pulling security from the buses themselves. Shouldn’t the city be patrolling it? Better yet shouldn’t the city be trying to deal with the problem in a more long-term manner as the experts suggested (https://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/solving-the-blades-problems-likely-will-require-looking-far-beyond-a-few-downtown-blocks/)?

    4. Does ST have additional fleet to increase peak service on the 1 Line? Will this necessitate more peak service on the full length of the 2 Line? What is your plan?

      1. Yep. Absolutely ST has the fleet to add additional capacity.

        ST has among the highest gap and spare ratios in the industry. Just putting the gap trains into scheduled service would represent a huge boost in capacity.

        After that getting the spare ratio down could do the same thing.

        And after that ST could look to accelerate the delivery schedule for new LRV’s.

        And ST actually does have additional LRV’s right now. It’s just that without Full ELE they don’t have space to store them on the west side of the lake. Distributed storage only goes so far.

        And remember, when the 2-Line opens across the lake it is likely to be operating with either 2 or 3-car trains. Just adding one car to the 2-Line trains would represent a huge increase in capacity at essentially zero additional operator cost.

        That seems like a pretty powerful way to add capacity in a very economical way. WSDOT would be wise to investigate it.

      2. ST has been saying it needs more trains for normal operations than expected, and trains are in maintenance more than expected. So how can it have a big surplus of trains ready to go?

      3. Why would ST run a mix of 2- and 3-car trains when they have enough fleet available to run all 3-car trains?

      4. >And remember, when the 2-Line opens across the lake it is likely to be operating with either 2 or 3-car trains. Just adding one car to the 2-Line trains would represent a huge increase in capacity at essentially zero additional operator cost.

        Can you show a source for that? I was under the impression the 2 car trains were only for the starter 2 line but once the full ELE opens it will be 4 cars.

        Additionally that once the bridge opens it will allow all of the 1 line trains to return to 4 cars rather than the 3 cars they’re running at peak right now

      5. @bigb,

        2-Line trains are currently running with 2-car trains at 10-min headways, but they are nowhere near full. There are huge amounts of unused capacity.

        When Full ELE opens the 2-Line will go to 8-min headways, producing an immediate boost in seated capacity of 25% per 2-car train. Of course demand will go up substantially too. So, given the unused capacity of today plus the 25% increase in the future, it really isn’t clear whether a 3-car train will even be required.

        That said, the reason ST might run 4-car trains on the 2-Line is not because of demand but because of interoperability concerns. It’s simply easier to run two lines if all the trains are interchangeable. So if the 1-Line is running 4-car trains, it is easier operationally to also run 4-car trains on the 2-Line because all trains become interchangeable. But that is an operational consideration and not necessarily a response to demand.

        Running 4-car trains on the 2-Line is almost certain to produce huge amounts of unused capacity. And, if that is the plan, then WSDOT was right to say “No” to Metro’s demand for more money. Because that is exactly the unused capacity that is needed on the corridor during Revive I-5.

        So if WSDOT can solve their mitigation problem for free by waiting for ST to run Full ELE with unused capacity, then more power to them. Maybe that is exactly why they decided to delay a year. Because the project is already $16M over budget, and paying Metro an additional $34M on top of that certainly doesn’t make the project any more affordable.

        But we will see. There are a lot of big improvements in transit occurring in the next year. It’s going to be amazing to see.

      7. I’m guessing 3-car trains will be adequate on both lines, and more than ample for the ridership on the combined span.

        What is lacking most is connecting bus frequency.

    5. “Dow was being greased for the spot”

      That’s the second time I’ve seen that claim in the comments. What greasing? How is he being greased?

      1. He appointed most of the board that makes the decision. I doubt this situation needs any more grease.

      2. I think I first heard the rumor that Dow might be considered for ST CEO back when he announced he was not running for re-election as King County Exec. I remember seeing it on twitter and also heard it on the “Seattle Nice” podcast hosted by Erica C Barnett, Sandeep Kaushik, and David Hyde.

        I don’t really know what Lazarus meant by “greased”, but it does seem like his candidacy for CEO has been circling around the smoky backrooms for at least a few months, if not longer.

      3. Who’s greasing? The other boardmembers? By doing what? Greasing implies they did something wrong to give him an advantage. I’m trying to figure out what that is, or if there is anything, or if this is a false accusation or ad hominem attack as my instinct suggests. So Dow applies for the position, how else could he do that? You think Dow should resign from the executive before applying, or that he can’t ever be CEO? Those seem extreme, and for him, what if he loses both?

      4. Well, it’s not like the Board is going to come out and say “we are fast-tracking Dow for this role even though he has not professional experience running a transit agency because, as chairperson of the Sound Transit Board, he put a bunch of us on this Board”, but it’s possible to infer it.

        I think the reason folks are thinking he’s “greased” or whatever is the fact the ST Board is even considering him for the role. He would never make the final cut for CEO of any other transit agency. He has no professional experience as transit agency staff (that I’m aware of). He would just be transitioning from head of the Executive Committee of the Sound Transit Board to CEO of Sound Transit.

    1. I wouldn’t be counting your chickens in the courts siding with the federal government. Both for the legal arguments by feds that are honestly unlikely to pass legal muster and the fact that the circuit court is unlikely to side with feds either, politics aside. And I honestly doubt SCOTUS will even hear the case either. I expect it’ll be a defer to lower court’s judgement.

      1. Why? Their claim is that it will penalize users of I-76 (which terminates within the Congestion Tolling Zone) and that I-76 is already tolled, so further tolls on its users are not allowed by the Interstate System rules.

        Yeah, it’s a dick position, but I wouldn’t pooh-pooh it just because Trump runs his mouth about it being “unfair” to “working-class Americans”. [All forty-two of them who drive from Jersey into Manhattan, paying $17 with EZ Pass for the tunnel, another $30 to park the car for the day and then fight their way home in the evening, just because they can not stand NJ Transit.]

      2. I’m saying the lawsuit is unlikely to pass the smell test with a judge for a variety of legal reasons, which is why I wouldn’t declare it dead yet. Alongside the argument that the DOT is hinging on is probably a fairly weak one tbh anyways. When the toll and toll enforcement isn’t even in the tunnel or highway but on NYC streets, on Canal Street specifically in the case of the Lincoln Tunnel. But I’m not a lawyer, so I’m mostly going off what I’ve talked to with my lawyer friends and what they see in terms of this case.

    2. It’s also worth noting that Trump has no alternative solution to fund the MTA. He doesn’t care a *** about people who ride the subway in Manhattan, only people who drove there because him, being rich, identifies with the drivers.

      Trump’s ideal outcome would be for the MTA to just collapse and NYC to depopulate, so he can use it as ane example of failed liberal governance.

      1. Maybe that would be the ideal outcome for a guy with Trump’s personality but a different background… but Trump is a Manhattan real estate guy, even if he lives in Florida now. He made his money on Manhattan’s rebound and his reputation and image are closely associated with New York. JD Vance might want NYC to collapse. Trump has always wanted NYC to love him.

    1. I don’t understand how the federal government has any power to stop it. If I was running New York, I would just ignore this “order”.

      1. I guess, if push came to shove, Trump could just order the military to physically destroy the toll cameras. According to the supreme court, he’d be immune from prosecution.

      2. from the article:

        “[Gov. Hochul] pointed out that a lawsuit aimed at keeping the congestion pricing program alive had already been filed by the state’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs the New York City subway and other public transit.

        “We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” Hochul said. “We’ll see you in court.””

        The interesting thing will be if a federal judge rules the tolls can remain in place while the court battle goes on.

      3. There are only three legal ways to stop or overturn an executive order, per sources like https://www.politicsphere.com/can-presidential-executive-orders-be-overturned/

        1) The president can change his mind and adapt or pull the E.O.
        2) Congress can slow-walk implementation of, or not fully fund, the E.O.
        3) The courts step in, if it’s possible the E.O. doesn’t pass the legal smell test.

        Since the first two aren’t happening in this moment in history, it’s all up to the third. That means NYC congestion pricing is off until the inevitable lawsuit is filed.

      4. It’s an interesting question whether the President’s immunity extends to using the military to settle domestic disputes, or whether it is limited to more mundane white collar criminal activity. Hopefully it never gets to the point where we get to find out.

      5. “There are only three legal ways to stop or overturn an executive order, per sources like”

        Except executive orders are for federal agencies and have to do with management of federal agencies, which is the only place a president has authority.

        Management of state agencies is well outside that scope.

    2. @Glenn in Portland: Agreed. Which is why a legal challenge is inevitable. An E.O. outlawing congestion charges nationwide, I can understand from a legal perspective, as the US DOT would overlook that. But outlawing one specific city’s? Nope.

      1. An executive order outlawing congestion pricing is illegal, nationally or locally. Changes in law are dictated by the legislature.

        Granted, nobody seems to be particularly interested in making this particular administration actually adhere to any laws, but that is how things are set up.

    3. There is an increasing practice in places like Texas to have toll roads with variable prices in several managed lane segments. We have this in our region too. This may not be called “congestion pricing” but it is literally a congestion pricing concept too.

      I don’t see how a President and their legal minions can argue that congestion pricing is banned in one place but not others. If the courts sided with the Trump administration, every managed lane toll in the country would quickly be challenged — possibly successfully.

    1. Is NEPA totally dead, or only dead when it impacts industries that Trump is sympathetic with? I’m sure he would love to continue to use NEPA to block solar and wind projects, while keeping fossil fuel projects exempt.

      1. My reading is that he intends to apply NEPA selectively, fast tracking stuff he likes, while bogging down stuff he doesn’t like in endless litigation. Imagine Missing Link-style litigation for every solar, wind, or battery storage development, while coal and gas gets to operate with no environmental rules at all. For the next 4 years, that seems to be where we’re headed. Remember, this president views the entire economy through the lens of the profits of the fossil fuel industry.

      2. NEPA’s only as “dead” as a federal court will allow Trump’s executive orders to circumvent the constitutional powers of Congress.

        Meanwhile, state environmental protection acts (SEPA) will continue to apply, and these acts largely duplicate the requirements of NEPA.

  5. Down in LA, Culver City’s City Council putting support in a letter to LA Metro (LAs Transit System) behind the automated heavy rail metro alternatives (4 and 5 in this case) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor that’s part of Measure M. This project will be very transformative when fully built out as the Valley (San Fernando Valley) will have a fast connection to UCLA, LAX, West LA, etc.

    It’s good to see a project that’s been lumbering in the background is getting support for the project on the alternatives that will be really good for the region and that the Monorail proposal is losing steam behind it other than a small vocal group who want it (Bel-Air).

    https://culvercitycrossroads.com/2025/02/17/city-council-to-support-metro-for-connecting-lines-for-valley-to-westside-transit/

    1. That’s a project that will actually revolutionize transportation in the city, in conjunction with extension of the D line (it’ll always be the purple line to me!)

    2. Thanks Sam. That is a much more recent drone view of the extension than I have seen before.

      It is interesting to see that they only added a small extension to the existing parking structure at FW Station. I would have at least built it closer to the new Link station, but I guess it is also supposed to serve buses.

      1. I have no issues with parking structures being a block or two from station platforms. I’d rather prioritize having active storefronts and destinations right next to station entrances!

    3. I had not seen the third track right before FW, does anybody what it is for? Short term rest area?

      1. Since it will be operating before OMF South opens, I suspect it’s a siding made available to hold trains. Otherwise, if a train breaks down on a mainline track, operations can get quite messy very quickly. I think it’s standard for ST to have siding tracks available every few miles.

    4. Martin, the siding or third tracks at about the 3:50 mark? Good question. And, does that occur anywhere else in the system?

  7. The argument that there must *always* be a free highway option is what strikes me. There is clearly a precedent for having tolls on roads that are supported by Federal funds. Some portions of Interstate highways are even tolled. I worked many years on an island where the only access was (and remains) via a tolled State highway, which was supported with Fed funds. If the courts were to rule this way, it really would reverse decades of precedent, and would be disastrous for highway and bridge funding. Keep an eye on this one!

    1. There is no “free” crossing of the Hudson south of Albany. You can’t be serious that Duffy is arguing that some mythical “free highway” option has anything to do with the Congestion Pricing Zone. He DOES have a good argument that because I-76 terminates within the Tolling Zone and already has a toll to pay for its operation, Interstate System rules forbid the addition of tolling for another purpose.

      1. His argument about the Value Pricing Pilot Program applies to I-76 (that’s why it can’t be “re-tolled” for Congestion Relief; it’s already tolled to pay for operations), but not to the streets of Manhattan which are not a part of the Interstate System. I-76 terminates at the Rotary. Cars which use one of the exits from the Rotary are no longer traveling on an Interstate System facility, so no VPP Project is necessary.

        And of course, it’s sophistical to say that “paying for transit doesn’t reduce congestion”. But this is Sean Duffy we’re talking about here. There’s a significant Brain Cell Deficit in his neural network.

  8. As for road use fee, I wonder if legislature will consider different per-mile rate for different vehicle?
    The news article seems to mention proposed rate of 2.6 cent. Would it be unfair if cyber truck and Fiat 500e were charged at the same rate?

    In combustion engine era, The fuel tax kind address that by taxing the gas, but per-mile charge is a different thing.

    1. For sure. It should be ton-mile, like in Oregon for commercial vehicles. But don’t get rid of the fuel tax completely. That keeps the reward for going electric.

  9. East Link progress report: I saw a photo posted today of a Link train (at least three cars) at Judkins Park Station. Perhaps they were testing the signals/electrical they installed over the weekend?

  10. Does anyone have an idea of when a king county metro will make the service changes the that affect Redmond?

Comments are closed.