Note: the site recently experienced downtime due to a clerical error, and is slowly coming back online. Apologies for the inconvenience. – Management.

73 days until the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opens.

Sounder Alert: Sound Transit sent an alert yesterday that the N Line is cancelled until tomorrow evening (2/27) due to a mudslide. ST spokespeople said the mudslide happened at milepost 25.5, near Big Gulch, and BNSF has closed the main line track for 48 hours to clear it.

Local Transit:

Other Transportation News:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

100 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: State of the City”

  1. Great to see that Metro is finally returning to fare enforcement, if ever so meekly.

    But good gawd, they plan to get their fare inspectors from their security staff? Effectively reducing the number of security officers from 170 to 130?

    That is a huge mistake. Given all the recent problems, Metro needs fare enforcement officers AND more security officers. Not less security officers.

    1. Sorry. Should be:

      “Effectively reducing the number of security officers from 170 to 140?”

      Still going in exactly the wrong direction.

      1. You could describe this as having a subset of the security officers ride all over the system, actively interacting with just about everyone on the bus, to achieve both direct and indirect security goals.

        But to do that you’d have to have a single idea besides “Metro Bad”.

      2. I’ve had my fare checked on the train a couple times this year.

        Several passengers failed to offer proof of payment. None offered IDs. None were issued warnings.

      3. Brent

        I check fares on the light rail. There is a warning process for people who do not give ID, and they are asked to leave the train, but aside from that we do not force people to deboard the train. At the end of the day it’s not the biggest priority to force people to get off the train if they’re not doing anything detrimental towards rider experience. The best we can do is use a combination of social shame and education to inform riders who maybe cannot pay about how to sign up for programs like ORCA lift, etc.

      4. D M,

        When Fare Ambassadors encounter someone in possession of clear-and-obvious proof of pre-payment (e.g. a $108 monthly pass or an active Regional Day Pass), but who failed to tap for that ride, do you ask for their ID, and issue a warning, or do you just collect the data that you encountered a passholders who failed to tap for that ride?

      5. Brent

        Yes, we still issue a warning or fine for invalid proof of payment even with a prepaid orca pass. The reason is that ST wants everyone to tap because, as I understand it, the pass is distributed to agencies proportionally based on the user’s taps. No taps = less money to sound transit, so they naturally want to defend their revenue.

        The first two violations are warnings with no fine or follow up, so if you forget to tap once or twice it’s not a huge deal. I personally wish that it was more like Berlin, where you just show your metro pass without the whole extra step of tapping, but the multiple agency problem prevents that. You used to be able to buy monthly paper passes for just the light rail and show that as proof of payment, but I think those were phased out a while ago.

      7. @D M,

        “Yes, we still issue a warning or fine for invalid proof of payment even with a prepaid orca pass”

        Excellent. That is exactly as it should be. I’m glad ST is writing warnings for this kind of behavior.

        There is a certain code of conduct that everyone using transit is supposed to adhere to, and part of that code of conduct involves tapping every time you board a new mode. It really isn’t that hard, and there aren’t any “except when” clauses for people on this kind of pass as opposed to that kind of pass. Everyone is treated the same, and everyone is expected to behave the same.

        I might also add that tapping isn’t just about revenue allocation. Tapping is also about data generation. Every time a rider taps that represents ridership data, and the transit agencies use that data to inform decisions about future service. And that is important.

        Also, it is my understanding that warnings are time limited and drop from your record after 6 months. So effectively a rider is allowed 2 mistakes every 6 months. That is a pretty low standard that everyone using Link should be able to meet.

      8. Lazarus

        You’re totally right on the data collection, I just don’t tell people that when I’n writing warnings because it elicits eye rolls more often than not haha.

        The warnings last a year, but you get two of them so you can forget to tap once every six months and be fine. It’s a very generous standard and generally people are pretty good at adhering to it.

        Also, it takes about half a second to tap properly (waving the card at the reader doesn’t work, you have to see the green check/boop noise), but I do wish the validators were placed in better locations, similar to places like Vienna, Helsinki, or Prauge, where you have steel lane guides to ensure you can’t miss them. Also we need more everywhere but the agency is working on that, albeit a little slower than I would prefer.

        Oh and another difference between us and metro is we are ST employees, not contractors. It gives us better control over procedure and policy. I’m nervous about how Securitas will handle inspections. They were our vendor for fare enforcement officers prior to the FA pilot program so I’ll be interested to see how their methods have changed.

      9. D M,

        Thank you for the forthright response.

        I have observed nobody being asked to leave the train, and nobody who declined to show ID having their picture taken.

        But if I pull out my ORCA card confident that I tapped, and I failed to tap, I get a warning, even though the reader shows I have a monthly pass covering all light rail rides. And then they have my ID.

        It is a big deal to me, and for everyone else I know who has come forward to say they have wrongfully been accused of fare evasion. It makes me want to stop tapping on the train, and shrug whenever the ambassadors come, knowing that that is the only sure-fire method of avoiding getting a warning.

        Social shaming has failed to work on ST for 15 years for those in charge of fare enforcement policy.

        As I have said many times over the course of 15 years, ST can collect the data on how many times a full passholder has been checked, and failed to tap. And then an extrapolation fix can be made in the revenue distribution formula to get ST, Metro, and CT the revenue they would be getting based on how many taps each agency asserts that probably got missed, based on the extrapolation.

        That would hopefully get ST, Metro, and CT the revenue they should be getting, without ticking off their most frequent riders and best allies.

      10. I did not realize the security officers aren’t direct employees. I would feel safer if they were direct employees.

      11. ST is not being generous to full passholders who occasionally get caught failing to tap. The passholders are being generous to ST. They already paid. That is the point.

        ST ought to be giving gentle reminders to such passengers (while gathering data for the back-end revenue distribution fix), not “social shaming.”

        Save the picture-taking for those who actually did not pay, especially those who refuse to show ID.

        You know who is most likely to accidentally miss tapping three times in six months? … the most-frequent riders. Those are riders ST can ill afford to lose, especially over mis-targeted fare enforcement policy and practices.

      12. @D M,

        Clarification please:

        Are you saying that ST fare ambassadors and security staff are direct ST employees? But on Metro they will be contractors?

      14. Lazarus

        ST employs FAs directly, but transit security is contracted. Look at the patches on the officers sleeves, you’ll see that the stations are staffed by PalAmerican in Lynnwood or Intercon for Northgate to ALS. The onboard TSOs for the trains (bright green) are Allied Universal. KCSO is our contractor for STPD officers.

        I believe that Metro TSOs on busses are Securitas (the three red dots), so if they’re pulling from that pool then they’ll be contractors.

        I’d like to note that contracting security is pretty normal for transit agencies. MTS in San Diego and Trimet use allied as well and I’ve generally had great experiences with ST TSOs. I would prefer in house security *and* police like BART, but budget wise that’s a big leap for ST to make, so I personally don’t think it would happen soon.

      15. @Brent White,

        I fail to see what your problem is with any of this.

        You are supposed to tap to be inside the fare paid area. You are supposed to tap to be onboard a bus. Just be an adult, take a little personal responsibility, and do it. It isn’t that hard.

        And, if you can’t handle the “complex” task of tapping upon entry and get caught riding without tapping, then you are in violation. Technically you are a fare evader. You should be at least warned. Just accept that you made a mistake and move on with life. It isn’t that hard.

        As far as being obstinate and refusing to show ID, it is exactly such juvenile behavior that should result in removal from the service. By force if necessary.

        And there is no reason whatsoever for ST to spend additional time, effort, and tax dollars correcting their books for monthly pass holders who don’t tap. Just follow the rules and tap.

      16. @D M,

        Thanks for clarifying. And that’s sort of what I thought, but the parade of uniforms gets a little confusing at times.

        And I’ve always had good experiences with ST Security Officers.

        I was having a long conversation with one Security Officer at 148th Street Station about his relationship problems (mid 50’s, no wife, no girlfriend, no prospects, etc) when a guy stole luggage from the Silver Cloud in Lynnwood and decided that heading south on Link would make a good getaway. Heading right for us!

        That was an entertaining day.

        But thanks for your input.

      17. Brent

        At the moment we don’t take pictures of passengers under any circumstance. I know it was discussed as a possibility but people really freak out about just being talked to on the train, much less having a picture taken of them. It’s a safety issue as much as a technology one. I agree that there needs to be a better way to deal with no disclosure of ID, but part of the pilot program is to identify and test new concepts and methods, so it’s still a work in progress. Throwing people off of the train is, again, a safety issue. Minimizing the potential for assaults on FAs is important as well; asking people to get off the train is a good compromise at the moment. It could change in the future. It’s a relatively new program so things are still very fluid in terms of procedure.

        As far as PoP systems go, two warnings is very generous for this sort of thing. In Berlin, even with a ticket that you forgot to stamp, if you don’t have a valid ticket you are required to pay a €60 fine on the spot, or be removed from the system (kicked out of the station) . If you don’t have a valid id you get the cops called on you. Two free warnings suddenly seems pretty cushy when viewing what more established and high volume systems do.

        https://www.berlin.de/en/public-transportation/1772016-2913840-tickets-fares-and-route-maps.en.html#:~:text=Fare%20Evasion%20in%20Berlin,make%20any%20exceptions%20for%20tourists.

      18. @D M,

        “As far as PoP systems go, two warnings is very generous for this sort of thing.”

        I concur 100%. The current system is very generous. Almost too generous I’d say.

        My concern is that such generosity breeds contempt for the system and actually ends up encouraging more fare evasion. I’d much rather have a system like most other places in the world.

        As far as attacks on fare ambassadors go, obviously they wouldn’t be the ones doing the removal. But they can certainly call ahead and have a security team meet the car at the next station and remove the scofflaw. And I’m in favor of that.

      19. Escorting passengers off the train is certainly a safety issue for those being asked to do it. Nor should the train ever be held up for the sake of such a walk of shame.

        I realize some passengers have to be scooched off the train at the end of the line.

        If passengers really do take offense at having their picture taken, do so from a further distance. But don’t let picture refusal moot the fare enforcement process.

        And yes, please make use of the data already being collected to get more fare revenue on the back end. ST gets zero fare revenue for warnings issued, leaving revenue on the table.

      20. Two warnings is very generous for failure to pay.

        Perhaps mere failure to tap properly should get more warnings, if ST is not interested in a revenue-positive back-end approach. Maybe have the warning fall off after a reasonable number of successful taps on the train. Obviously, I’d still prefer the polite reminder, but I’d like to see at least some differentiation between fully-paid tap failures and outright theft after 15 years of no progress on the issue.

      21. There is a certain code of conduct that everyone using transit is supposed to adhere to, and part of that code of conduct involves tapping every time you board a new mode.

        Right, but Brent’s point is that you really shouldn’t have to tap if you have an unlimited pass. It is a stupid way for the agencies to share ORCA card revenue. They should just do statistical sampling. Until then the fare enforcers have to keep giving tickets (or warnings) to people who forget to tap (but who’ve already paid).

      22. At the moment we don’t take pictures of passengers under any circumstance. I know it was discussed as a possibility but people really freak out about just being talked to on the train, much less having a picture taken of them.

        It seems like body cameras would be a way to handle it. They are designed to prevent security abuse but can also be used to figure out how many people are repeatedly not paying. You wouldn’t release the data publicly — it would be for statistical purposes. You could run some facial recognition software through it to see if there is a significant number of people in that category. It could also give you an idea if more people are refusing to pay (or the same people are refusing to pay more often). This actually makes a big difference when it comes to fare enforcement. That’s because paying a fare isn’t like shoplifting. A single shoplifter can cost a store a huge amount of money. A single fare violator is just one person no matter how often they ride the train. It is also quite possible that a person who routinely doesn’t pay will never pay (they will simply stop riding the train). In contrast if a high percentage of people refusing to pay is a bigger problem.

      23. Ross,

        I am not saying that passholders should never tap.

        I am just saying issuing warnings to passholders who failed to tap is entirely counterproductive. It is detrimental to the passenger experience, gives actual fare evaders more time at the center of the car to get off before the ambassadors get to them, and yields no additional revenue for ST.

        ST ought to pick one:

        (1) Agree with Metro and CT on a back-end correction to the revenue distribution formula based on the fully-paid tap failure projections, and just give friendly reminders to the fully-paid passholders;

        Or (2) have ST, Metro, and CT agree that the back-end correction is more trouble than it is worth, and just give gentle reminders to the fully-paid passholders.

        At the end of the day, the same amount of revenue is generated for the collective transit agencies.

      24. I am not saying that passholders should never tap.

        Fair enough. I am though. I think that the various agencies need to sit down and figure out how to slice up the passholder pie. They can look at the data (annually?) and determine what is fair. For that matter they could just come up with arbitrary numbers (you get 10%, you get 30%, etc.) and not worry whether one agency is trending or not in the passholder world. At that point passholders wouldn’t need to tap. Fare enforcers would run their card and realize they have effectively already paid.

      25. People who ride the most often and give ST the most money are the most likely to get fare-checked. If you ride several times a week that’s 250 times in a six-month period. You’re likely to forget at least one or two of those times when you’re thinking of something else, or you think the reader registered it when it didn’t, or you’re running for a train that’s coming now. I sometimes go back up the escalator to check when I don’t remember whether I tapped. If somebody tapped for Link twenty times in the past month, that should show they’re not a fare evader.

    2. I recently rode the C-line from Mercer St. to downtown, which begged an interesting question: the sign says “tap here for streetcar”, but what happens if you tap and the end up boarding a bus? Is the fare payment considered valid, or are you at risk of getting cited by a fare inspector because of some bus vs. streetcar technicality?

      One would hope that the Orca tap for the streetcar would be also valid for the bus, as I can see lots of people being confused by this if it isn’t.

      1. My assumption is that tapping for the streetcar does NOT count as tapping on a bus. It’s a similar situation at stops shared by rapidride and standard buses, like the C and 40 along Westlake. Or tapping on at a Link station, then walking out and catching a bus instead.

        You could make the argument that you paid already, or that at worst it would have been a free transfer for you, so you weren’t evading a fare. But if fare enforcement is willing to cite monthly pass holders who didn’t tap on, I doubt that argument would work.

      2. I think Michael Smith’s mistake was that he complied with the ambassador’s request to show his ID.

      3. Yeah, Larry is right. It is like making a transfer. You still have to tap again even though you tapped on the first bus. It won’t charge you any more but you are still supposed to tap*. In this case the sign is pretty clear (tap here for streetcar). It wasn’t “tap here for transit”.

        I also wouldn’t expect to see a fare inspector on any of the buses since none of the RapidRide buses serve the same stop. All the buses that share the same stop are “pay at the front”. If you walked over to catch the G and then boarded (without paying on the bus or next to a bus stop) then things could get weird.

        *Actually in this case if you tap on the streetcar and then tap to get on the bus instead you will be charged an extra quarter since the streetcar is discounted.

      4. I don’t know how it works with the trolley specifically, but I had a similar experience with RapidRide versus a regular bus.

        There’s a section of 156th Ave, between Northeast 24th Street and Northeast 8th Street, where both the B and the 245 run. So if you’re going from 24th to 8th, which I frequently do, you can take whichever comes first.

        One time, the countdown clock said the B was coming first, so I tapped on the sidewalk. But then the 245 actually came first (which is not unusual at all), and I got on that, and tried to tap on the bus. It didn’t work, and I forget the exact error message, but it indicated that I had tried to tap again too soon. The driver complained, and I tried to explain the situation, but he just ignored me (this was well into the period where Metro had decided to ignore people not paying the fare), and I sat down.

        These days, I don’t tap on 156th until I see the B already coming.

    3. But good gawd, they plan to get their fare inspectors from their security staff? Effectively reducing the number of security officers

      They aren’t reducing the number of security staff. They are simply asking the security staff to also do some fare enforcement. It is like asking the police to stop people from jaywalking (something they do routinely in this town). It doesn’t mean those same cops won’t respond to a bank robbery.

      1. Not exactly. It’s two different jobs. Fare enforcement is customer engagement and education. It’s continuous, and narrowly focused. It’s following a system to collect revenue and data, which in turn inform KPIs on farebox recovery, fare evasion, cost per boarding, etc. If a security officer is re-assigned/re-trained to conduct fare enforcement, they are not doing security.

        Security is different. It’s observing and reporting everything, its enforcing rules of conduct violations, it’s engaging when necessary to de-escalate situations, it’s coordinating with the LCC and law enforcement. Much of the work is off-board and often outside the fare zone. So yes, re-allocating those resources will have an impact.

      2. @another engineer,

        “If a security officer is re-assigned/re-trained to conduct fare enforcement, they are not doing security.”

        Correct. A uniformed fare enforcement officer, while clearly having an “official” presence, is not doing security work. And more should they be.

        My concern here is that Metro is reducing their security staff, in order to create a fare enforcement staff. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the correct approach here.

        Metro needs to spool up a fare enforcement staff AND increase their security staff. And they certainly don’t need less security. That is nonsense.

        As far as the KPI’s, hopefully those are generated fairly automatically and don’t require a lot of time from agency field staff.

      3. It’s two different jobs.

        Right. Just like being a fire fighter and being a paramedic. But if someone collapses on the sidewalk and a firefighter is there they will aid the victim in much the same way that a paramedic would.

        So, what about these fare inspectors. Do they know anything about security? Well, according to the Seattle Times:

        They will come from the ranks of the 170 transit security officers the agency already employs.

        Thus they are still fully qualified to do security. They will do everything you mentioned. As with a regular security guard they note where they were and when. (Back when I was a security guard we used pen and paper but I would imagine they have GPS tracking now.) As with a regular security guard if they see some sort of violation they will intervene. If they do intervene they will write up a report. If necessary they will work with the police. They will do all this because they are trained to do all this. They are still security guards for all intents and purposes — it is just that they are *also* doing fare enforcement. Do think that if a fight breaks out in the back of a bus a fare enforcement officer — trained as a security guard — will just run away? Will they ask they for their fare? Of course not — they will intervene based on their training.

        Most of the time a Metro Transit security guard stands around. I don’t mean to dismiss the importance of this. Their mere presence is important — it makes people feel safer. They also need to be ready to respond if something nasty goes down (just like a firefighter needs to be ready to respond to a fire). But most of the time there is nothing for a security guard to do. Having them check fares effects their ability to act as a de-facto security guard minimally.

        This is why Lazarus has it backwards. There are plenty of people who can be fare enforcers but can’t do security. Thus it would have been quite reasonable for Metro to hire fare enforcers. But that would cut into the budget for other things — like security. If you want Metro to have as much security as they can possibly afford then you should be thrilled with this idea.

      4. Metro needs to spool up a fare enforcement staff AND increase their security staff.

        With what money? Metro can’t afford that.

        Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the correct approach here.

        Like it or not that is the nature of government. That is like saying we should run the buses more often. Yes! Of course we should. But there is no money to do that. They simply don’t have the money to hire a bunch of new fare-enforcement officers let alone hire a bunch of fare-enforcement officers AND a bunch of new security guards.

      5. So yes, re-allocating those resources will have an impact.

        It will in the sense that RapidRide routes will be more secure than other routes. That is about it.

        Look, if you want to argue that we should simply not spend money on fare enforcement (and spend it on increasing security) then fine. That is a trade-off and some would say the extra revenue just isn’t worth it.

        But to suggest that this is somehow like hiring a bunch of fare-enforcers (with no security experience) while also laying off the same number of security guards is just bullshit. Given the limited budget of the agency this is the best approach (from a security standpoint) to increase fare enforcement.

      6. Security officers are still a security presence on trains even if they are checking fares.

        That said, their work checking fares requires spending time in the office filling out reports. But they have to do some of that work, anyway, for security incidents.

        My preference would be to have fare-checking done by security officers, especially if they are paid better and stick around longer, so they can pick up on the mistakes in ST’s procedures and feel confident they can point the mistakes out to their supervisors, without reprisal.

        I don’t see a point in us trying to micromanage ST’s job descriptions. But I do see a point in social shaming ST when they are doing something harmful, including their (past?) warnings to passholders not to miss taps, or face a fine and eventual trespass warning.

      7. Ross, see above. It’s literally two different jobs. The primary things they have in common is a set of eyes and comms capability. Pulling 30 of 150 TSOs and converting them into 30 FEOs is a 20% reduction in security staffing. Period. And in most cases, they’re unionized and working within specifically defined roles. I literally dare you to go ask a FEO to physically restrain an unruly, uncooperative rider.

        I don’t get you, man. You’ve got actual practitioners here on this platform providing information, and yet you simply dismiss it as wrong. Why? I would think you’d be grateful for the learning opportunity. Safety and security are the biggest issues impacting the return of ridership and retention of employees, and you seem completely desensitized the conversation actually happening among the agencies. Read the room.

      8. It’s literally two different jobs. The primary things they have in common is a set of eyes and comms capability.

        And the fact that they have training and worked as a security guard! Holy cow, don’t you see the difference:

        1) Hire someone off the street to be a “fare ambassador”. They have no security training or experience. Maybe they’ve worked in retail (e. g. a Taco Bell cashier).

        2) Someone who was trained as a security guard and working as a security guard gets reassigned to enforce fares.

        You are saying there is no difference at all? Get real.

        Just to be clear, it would have been quite reasonable for Metro to do that. Just hire 30 fare enforcers and pay them less than they pay the security guards. They lay off 30 security guards and they save themselves a little money. But they didn’t do that. What they did was actually *more* secure than that approach.

        Security officers are still a security presence on trains even if they are checking fares.

        Exactly.

      9. You are literally hopeless. You chastised commenters for pointing out that reducing TSOs to pay for FEOs would impact security. You were presented with facts pointing out why that is. You ignore said facts and proclaim yourself correct. With no reflection, no curiosity, no inquiry. And seemingly no concern for actual security conditions out there. Sheesh.

      10. You chastised commenters for pointing out that reducing TSOs to pay for FEOs would impact security

        I pointed out that the alternative — hiring fare enforcers with no security training or experience while simultaneously cutting security — is worse (from a security standpoint). I don’t know why this is so hard to understand. Do you think Metro has a lot of money they can just throw at security or fare enforcement — they can’t even hire enough drivers! Metro basically has the following choices when it comes to fare enforcement:

        1) Simply not worry about it. There are other priorities.
        2) Transfer security guards to fare enforcement detail.
        3) Hire a bunch of people with no experience or training in security while simultaneously cutting security.
        4) Hire a bunch of people with no experience or training in security while simultaneously cutting some other department (drivers? mechanics? you can’t be serious).
        5) Magically find the money somewhere (maybe the federal government will chip in).

        The first four are quite reasonable (although the fourth is a really bad idea). The fifth one is bullshit and Lazarus knows it is bullshit but Lazarus has a long reputation of spreading bullshit about Metro. He thinks they can somehow just magically come up with the money.

        The second option allows for a level of security that is quite similar to what exists now. Again, simply the presence of an official makes a huge difference. There is a plenty of evidence for this (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10439463.2019.1688811). Yes, I fully understand the different job titles and responsibilities. I used to be a security guard. But what you keep ignoring is that from a *practical standpoint* there is very little difference. Most criminals stop when they see a public official. The fact that the public official is also trained as a security guard — which means they are capable of deescalating a situation — means they can deal with the vast majority of situations quite well. It also means that they are capable of calling the cops when they need to. So you are talking about a tiny, practically meaningless, largely hypothetical set of conditions for which it makes any difference at all. What if someone steals a purse and then the fare enforcers are too timid to intervene because they think the union (of security guards) will be upset if they actually intervene? Give me a break. They are security guards for all intents and purposes.

      11. @another engineer,

        I learned early on in my career that, if you don’t want to appear hopeless, you should learn to listen to the people who have the actual learned experience and the expertise. It’s a mantra that has served me well, at least so far.

        Additionally, I think it is fairly obvious that reducing TSOs to pay for FEOs will impact security. How could it not? I can’t imagine how it would work otherwise.

        But hey, maybe there is some magic dust out there that I don’t know of.

    4. On Eastside Transit’s recent video about the Downtown Redmond station, I asked in the comments if it would have fare gates. Good lord, I unintentionally created a firestorm about Sound Transit’s financial model. https://youtu.be/KytOqkwWBc8?si=ERedKyBdBNhD07H0

      Personally, I’m pro-fare gates, as they seem to be a more reliable way to capture revenue. But if financial contingencies or whatever preclude those, tapping is probably the only alternative.

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

    1. Per an unfinished article draft: Metro submitted the final East Link restructure to the county council for approval.

      The first phase is in Spring 2025 to coordinate with the Redmond Link extension May 10. “RapidRide B Line, partial implementation of routes 224, 250, 269 and 930.” The B will remain on 156th between NE 8th and NE 40th (serving only Redmond Tech station and not Overlake Village station), and it will be extended to Redmond Downtown station. I have limited knowledge of downtown Redmond so I’ll leave it to you to compare the revised routes in the first link with the current routes and guess what the “partial implementations” will be. My impression is all downtown Redmond routes will serve both the Redmond Downtown Link station and the existing transit center, so maybe that will be the first phase.

      The rest of the restructure appears to have its alignments (=routing) decided, but “phasing to be determined in the coming months”.

      The restructure includes a 2-year Metro Flex pilot in greater Crossroads between NE 8th and NE 24th east of 148th, with an extension to Overlake Village station. This includes the area I grew up in, but not where I go now (which is further south). The boundaries are modified from the previous proposal. I’m glad I had a fixed route then (226, where Northup crosses 8th) and didn’t have to summon an app-taxi every day.

      Please let us know of anything new or interesting you find in this version, or what you think the partial implementations will be.

      1. The metro home page does not appear to list any of the ST express routes, but the map they attached (dated Nov 25, 2024) shows the ST routes. For example, it has the 554 continue from Issaquah Transit Center to the highlands on Gilman blvd, but doesn’t show the Sammamish tail. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections#gallery-2

        The map on the King County Council website (dated January 2025) also shows the ST routes, but routes the 554 along Newport way to the highlands. https://i0.wp.com/kingcountymetro.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/P4_Full_byType_noEPA.jpg?ssl=1

        It does say the ST express routes are not final.

      2. The Federal Way restructure doesn’t have any ST Express routes either. In previous restructure proposals it was a joint Metro/ST Express proposal, but this time ST is on a later timeline and hasn’t reached that point yet. We thought it was because Pierce Transit hadn’t made up its mind yet and some routes go into Pierce County and PT operates them, but that wouldn’t apply to the Eastside.

        So all we have on ST Express is our article on the previous proposal round and our memories. According to that, the 550, 554 and 556 are going to be consolidated into a new 554 from Issaquah to Bellevue TC, running every 10-15 minutes weekdays, 15 minutes weekends, and 15-30 minutes evenings. It will have local stops on Gilman Blvd to serve western Issaquah, and will serve south Bellevue Way to backfill the 550 there. The map appears to say all runs will terminate just north of I-90, and only “select runs” will continue to Swedish, the Highlands P&R, Sammamish, and Marymoor Village station. Ross thinks that may be a mistake in the map and all runs will continue to the Highlands P&R, but we have no official word either way.

        The net result will be that central Issaquah will have a new frequent express to downtown Bellevue, while the Highlands will have all-day expresses to Mercer Island, but there may not be good interaction between central Issaquah and the Highlands.

      3. “the 554 along Newport way to the highlands”

        I heard Gilman Blvd but ST may have switched to Newport Way. That would be unfortunate because it would remove the promised better service to the western Issaquah commercial area. Gilman Blvd runs through it while Newport Way is mostly the middle of nowhere.

      4. It is weird that the East Link restructure no longer contains ST Express buses. Not only does the map contain those, but previous versions of the web page did. Here is an example from the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20250101224341/https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections. I have no idea which revision that was — but it clearly shows the 542, 544 and 554 being revised. The pages for those routes (also archived) show those routes. This includes the expected frequency of the routes as well as where they are expected to go.

        I find it very odd that ST has basically stopped doing that sort of work. I’m not sure if they are afraid of cutbacks (i. e. that they can’t actually provide that level of service) or if the people who used to do that are just not there anymore. It is just weird.

      5. I don’t believe any plans have changed. Now that the Metro restructure is written into draft legislation before the County Council, their maps are relating only to what’s in the legislation.

  3. The Regional Day Passes have been $6, and will now remain so indefinitely, just to be more clear.

    What is changing March 1 is the fare covered by the pass. It is $3.50 today. Starting Saturday, only the first $3 of each ride will be covered. Washington State Ferries and Kitsap Fast Ferries are excluded. Sounder and the monorail are the only other ORCA Pod services that will still be charging more than $3.

    I would love to see a $4 Regional Paratransit Day Pass in the near future, if the paratransit agencies can align their fares at $2. But first Pierce, Everett, and Kitsap paratransit would have to get set up to accept passengers’ ORCA accounts for payment. I’m expecting such a proposal from Everett in the near future.

    1. Oh, and King County Ferries are also more than $3. The upcharge on them will grow by 50 cents Saturday.

  4. Thanks for linking to the “For E-buses to Succeed” article! Electrification of King County Metro buses need accelerate!

    While fully battery powered buses are necessary on some routes, there are many more routes where it is more cost effective to use overhead catenary with the much smaller batteries on the buses. KC Metro’s new “trackless trolley’s” have batteries that enable ~20 miles of range* independent of the overhead catenary. Once back on the overhead wires the batteries recharge. This has major advantages over the bulky, heavy, expensive batteries required for a fully electric bus. To be clear, we love the fully battery electric buses over the noisy diesel stinkers, but these new trolley buses should be deployed on far more than the 14 existing trolley routes**. Overhead wires uphill, batteries downhill and on straightaways… let’s deploy these trolley buses asap and on many, many more routes.

    * from memory of South Base Bus tour, unable to confirm at https://kingcountymetro.blog/2024/12/10/new-stronger-batteries-to-boost-king-county-metros-trolley-bus-fleet/

    ** https://metro.kingcounty.gov/up/rr/m-trolley.html

    1. It sounds like you’re asking a LOT of the 20 mile batteries. They don’t jump to 100% when the poles hit the wires. Like all batteries it takes time to recover after discharge. Perhaps as a first step can we ask that Metro always use ETB’s on the routes which have overhead, no excuses?

      The “excuses” are what the batteries were supposed to eliminate.

      1. The overhead wire has to be depowered sometimes for construction and maintenance, so a literal “always” will never be feasible. At one point it seemed like they were defaulting to diesel-hybrids every weekend on most/all trolley routes, but this doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Perhaps they’ve returned to only using non-trolley buses when construction has paid the fee to make that happen.

      2. Nathan, I notice a large correlation to weekend trolley operation around major holidays (I get their trolley motorization email updates). I suspect it has something to do with weekly staffing. I mean the trolleys are off wire capable and do go off wire often (regularly on the 43 at Montlake Lid) so it’s more than just construction detours (which is the excuse often given).

      3. Anecdotally, every trolley route is still run with a diesel bus nearly every weekend. Even weekdays, I got a diesel powered #2 on a trip last Thursday.

        Without a significant improvement in the reliability of the trolley infrastructure, Metro bus maintain enough active diesel buses to be able to replace every trolley route, systemwide, with diesel, with very little notice. When the number of trolley routes is small, this isn’t a big deal, as Metro has to have spare diesel buses in reserve, anyway. But, if trolley buses start to grow to 20 or 30% of the entire fleet, then it starts to become a problem – effectively, part of the cost of trolley service becomes buying extra diesel buses to mostly sit idle, which gets expensive.

        It is not yet clear whether battery buses are going to end up suffering the same problem. For instance, it’s not hard to imagine some charging equipment failure at the base that takes months to fix, during which time, diesel buses have to be ready to go to maintain service on the routes. Again, if the number of battery buses is small, it’s not a problem, but if, beyond a certain point, each additional battery bus requires Metro to buy a diesel bus to keep in reserve, that gets prohibitively expensive, very fast.

        Of course, diesel buses, themselves, go offline for many reasons, but the difference is there’s no single piece of equipment that can knock dozens or hundreds of buses offline, all at once. Even if the fuel pump at the base were to break down, buses could still go to a gas station as backup and remain on the road, even if it means Metro having to spend more money on fuel costs.

        All that said, while trolley wire seems to be very unreliable (at least as implemented here), overhead wire for trains (Link and streetcar) does seem to work pretty much all the time, with outages very rare, and fixed promptly. So, making overhead wire reliable definitely can be done, Metro just currently chooses not to do it, when the alternative of just running diesel buses nearly every weekend exists.

      4. asdf2, what you say makes me sad. ETB’s simply provide the finest rider experience of any bus. They’re quiet and quick enough to spill all the standees if the driver isn’t careful. I wonder if it’s that the slack-wire system doesn’t hold up like the old singing wires. I did not know that the substitution of diesels was because they need to work on the overhead every weekend.

        Sure, there need to be times when a certain section of wire goes dead for the power supply system, but if buses are dewiring regularly, some necessary maintenance is not being provided.

        Nathan, “construction and maintenance” are what the twenty-mile batteries are supposed to allow the buses to bypass. They are not an excuse to run diesels on trolley routes.

  5. The new fare enforcement is a joke at best, and a farce at worst. Look at it. First is you get two warnings. Really, two? That is insane. One warning is enough. Then the fine is twenty dollars. It increases 40 if you don’t pay it after 90 days. There is nothing else. Of you get caught multiple times, it is twenty dollars. You can put that twenty on an Orca. There is no incentive to follow the law.
    Since Sound Transit brought back the fare ambassadors, I have been checked twice. That happened on the same day, y the same two people. The first was while on a trip to see a doctor in Seattle. The second was on the way home. Based on that experience, yes I know Metro and Sound Transit are different, if I only get checked twice in several months, two warnings, then another month before checked again, and I ride regularly, it would cost me twenty dollars to pay a fine, I would be saving money. There is no removal if you are repeatedly caught. There is no increase in fines if you keep being a fare thief. It is a minor inconvenience for those criminals who don’t pay fares.

    1. So what? After a while if this is really a problem — if a significant number or riders are taking their chances and paying $20 every time they get caught — the penalties can go up.

      1. Considering that it is likely fare thieves will only be checked a few times a year, at best, the 20 dollars is nothing.

      3. Considering that it is likely fare thieves will only be checked a few times a year, at best, the 20 dollars is nothing.

        You are missing my point. It is quite likely that the size of the fine doesn’t make much difference at all (most people don’t cheat). But imagine you are right. Imagine that 25% of the riders just decide to ignore the potential penalties. They take their chances knowing a penalty is cheaper than paying the fare. If so, we can always change it. We will know whether there are a lot of repeat offenders are not.

    2. I agree that two warnings is one too much, but I don’t think it’s a big deal. The fine is definitely far too low. It should be at least high enough that it’s cheaper to pay the fare all the time.

      The solution to racial disparity in law enforcement is not to stop enforcing the law, it’s to enforce it against white people, too… which for fare enforcement was always the case. They have always checked everyone on the vehicle. I have often been the only white person on the bus (that’s life taking transit in America!), but they never skipped me.

      1. I agree. I don’t care about the skin color of the fare thieves, or any other behavior that breaks the law, I only care the laws being enforced and to see real accountability.

    3. You can’t be given a ticket if they don’t know who you are. Who’s fare jumping and handing over an I.D.?

      Kicked off a train or bus? Oh that hurts! Just wait for the next one.

      As a young guy I used to collect every colored and lettered transfer and ride buses for free all the time, so it’s not a new problem. What’s changed is that many lower income people are pretty determined not to pay for transit any longer, and the Washington Supreme Court ruled they don’t have to.

      Because Seattle is so toxic to lower income people, you shouldn’t expect to ever increase transit fare recovery. People have real problems, like lack of housing and food to eat, kids that need taken care of. 99 problems, but paying for transit isn’t one of them.

    1. The article doesn’t even get into the appearance of conflict of interest in giving sole source contract extensions and additional funds to companies whose executives contributed to Dow’s campaigns.

      And the article doesn’t stress enough that the CEO should not just a “builder” but is also responsible for day-to-day operations including everything from security to maintenance to minimizing disruptions. With Mestas already on staff, the importance of the latter actually increases.

      If Dow wanted to be CEO of a system elsewhere it’s one thing. But it’s really bad form to go from being Board chair to permanent CEO of the same agency. TRU and Seattle Subway are both highlighting the problem — yet are not being as blunt as they could be and saying “Don’t do it, ST! No matter how good Dow may be at the position, it will constantly taint the credibility of the agency to put him in this role.”

      1. The Urbanist just tossed Dow softball.

        Seattle Subway and Transit Riders Union don’t hold a lot of weight except with the far Left. Not sure where The Seattle Times is going to weigh in on this, have they? I don’t pay for content. Common sense points to this being bullshit.

        The problem with Dow running the Sound Transit show isn’t any different from the underlying problem of the whole organization. The last time the voters had a say it was 2016. There’s no way to demand better or throw the bums out. Let’s put the blame where it really belongs… Seattle Subway and the Transit Riders Union pushed for Sound Transit hard in 2016. Wrong answer kids. You got played.

      2. Tacomee, it’s funny that you refuse to pay for content – you expect it to be handed to you for free? That’s communist behavior.

        The Seattle Times broke the news, here: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/sound-transit-ceo-search-heats-up-for-a-potential-675k-position/

        If you want to use a social program you begrudgingly pay for, the Seattle Times is generally accessible online via public libraries. I bet you could get to it for the price of a library card.

    2. Hold it.

      Constantine sat for an interview with The Urbanist and defended his inclusion on the CEO prospects list, then states that “this process is not supposed to be carried out through the press.”

      That is sort of rich. Maybe, if the process really isn’t supposed to play out in he press, then maybe he shouldn’t sit down and give an interview with the press.

      That really doesn’t build confidence in his “integrity”.

      1. The interview had been scheduled for months, and (predictably) Dow didn’t actually want to talk about the CEO selection process. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t news!

      2. Lazarus,

        Chalk it up as a a learning process into Greater Seattle politics. The whole concept of the Sound Transit taxation district without directly elected officials stunk long before this.

        I think most pols in Seattle look at “The Urbanist” “Publicola” “Transit Riders Union” and certainly “The Stranger” as tools that used to get what they want. The trouble is after the pols get what they want, like the ST 3 yes vote, they simply blow off the Lefties who helped them.

        Maybe “The Stranger” headline is “Fuck Dow Running Sound Transit!” and maybe that puts a stop to the idea, but Dow isn’t stupid. He measured his support on the board long before he decided to run for CEO. The board gave Julie Timm how much money to go away? ($460k? I think) after 16 months in the job? The whole thing stinks.

    1. BNSF suspends all passenger rail for 48 hours whenever there’s a mudslide. Nathan was probably going by the announcement we got, which was for Sounder. But Amtrak is normally affected too.

  8. In Little Saigon, Metro should reopen its original far side stops in each direction. The shift of the eastbound stop to nearside from far side was ineffective in addressing the societal and made transit flow worse. Route 9 had no stop at the transfer point; Route 36 was delayed at the nearside stop as it had to wait for trips of routes 7, 36, and 106 to serve the stop only to stop again around the corner on 12th Avenue South.

    One key way that Seattle can assist transit is control security at transfer points; two in crisis have been Pike-Pine-3rd and 12th and Jackson.

    1. The dearth of deterrence for assault on transit is a larger problem than can be solved simply by adding to the denominator, though it does help. We were lucky that Shawn’s murderer was caught. We were lucky that the boy who executed a sleeping passenger was tracked down.

      AFAIK, the mentally ill guy who gashed a hole in the side of a passenger’s head on the 1 Line in front of numerous witnesses managed to flee, and never got caught, despite his limited capacities or ability to change his appearance.

      I assume Metro and ST exchange info and tactics quite readily. Having a security officer might have deterred the rock attack, maybe. But actually catching the guy would hopefully deter those who think (incorrectly) that it is open season on transit.

      It is still much safer than driving a car.

    2. Fare inspectors may help more; they have several benefits; fare collection, boarding, and alighting are all faster; the service is faster and more attractive; the uniforms improve security; faster and more secure service is more attractive; ridership increases. Assaults on operators will decline. Next, the transfer points have to secure.

      1. The uniforms the ST fare ambassadors wear, and really who they are hiring for this (lower-paying?) job, make the ambassadors look mostly harmless. Put some of the huskier security officers on fare-checking duty, and maybe the shruggers will start complying.

        As it is, passholders are treated worse than fare evaders. That real-world outcome is upside-down.

  10. It’s waaay beyond time that Metro started enforcing fares. But they should be able to remove and no trespass riders who do not pay a fare or are abusive to other passengers.

    Focus on rapidride. Communicate it. Do it. There is pent up demand for moderately comfortable transit in Seattle. Please Metro.

    1. You can’t make people fallow rules…. if people don’t feel like paying for riding the bus, they’re just not going to pay. Mass transit relies on a social contract for fares and good behavior from riders.

      But let’s just leave Metro out of this for a minute. What’s the current social contract for behavior at Seattle public parks currently? How about transit stops? Is it socially expectable to use drugs and sleep it off in a public library? Are there not entire neighborhoods overrun with street level drug dealers and prostitutes?

      As a city, Seattle has set a code of conduct in public spaces that’s way different than 25 years ago or even before the COVID pandemic. Anything goes now. I don’t think it’s reasonable, and certainly not fair, to hold poor Metro to higher standards than the Public Library…. and currently libraries are little more than daycare centers for late stage drug abusers.

      1. “But let’s just leave Metro out of this for a minute. What’s the current social contract for behavior at Seattle public parks currently? How about transit stops? Is it socially expectable to use drugs and sleep it off in a public library? Are there not entire neighborhoods overrun with street level drug dealers and prostitutes?”

        You can stop asking rhetorical questions that you already know the answers to but are being intentionally obtuse in the framing. You’re just wasting everyone’s time with those kinds of questions & framing.

        If you’re attitude is to continue being cynical for the sake of being cynical, then you’re not providing much to the convo at hand to be frank. Other people here care about improving the situation, while you wanna wallow in it as if nothing can be done when that is clearly false from how the situation has improved from the COVID era policies. Do I wish the situation was different, sure everyone does. But being cynical about does nothing and is just being callous and lazy in my view.

        Be the change you want to be instead of wallowing in a sea of cynical takes.

      2. Zach B

        Here’s the 2 new parameters transit needs to live with.

        Fare box recovery is a thing of the past. Liberal courts and public opinion both believe you cannot force people to pay to ride. In Washington State you can’t even ask for an I.D.. I doubt kicking people off the bus or train will even pass legal muster.

        The Federal Government is done paying for local transit projects for at least a decade (maybe more?). Trump will cut the spending, Congress is prepared to change the law and the Supreme Court will not step in to stop this.

        So what’s the plan? Pretend it’s just not happening? Cry about it? I think the ST and Metro plans for fare enforcement are not based in reality.

        The answer is transit plans that do not require any fare box recovery OR Federal money. And is not my opinion I’m afraid, it’s just the new reality.

      3. So do nothing, just suffer is your answer. And this is why no one genuinely takes you seriously in this discussion.

      4. >The answer is transit plans that do not require any fare box recovery OR Federal money.

        Hey tacomee, how much federal money does King County Metro, Community Transit, and/or Pierce Transit get for operations and maintenance?

      5. As a city, Seattle has set a code of conduct in public spaces that’s way different than 25 years ago or even before the COVID pandemic. Anything goes now.

        It is complete anarchy I tell you. Anarchy! Cats and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria!

        Sorry, but that is absurd. Of course there are laws. Anybody who thinks things are worse now than in the past is just nostalgic for a world that never existed. Go read a book that takes place then (e. g. one by Tom Robbins) and you can see that there were plenty of messed up people on the streets back then. Things were especially bad in the 70s. They were still pretty bad in the 80s and 90s. Then they started a very strong trend towards the better. It reminds me of my brother in law who lives in Naperville and wanted to visit “CHOP” after coming out here for a wedding. Boy was he disappointed. “So you mean it is basically just a regular city park with people playing and the occasional wino hitting you up for money? Hell, we got that in our town. ”

        Yeah, pretty much. Same goes for fare enforcement. The whole thing collapsed — like much of society — during the pandemic. Consider traffic enforcement. For a while it was pretty much non-existent. The cops didn’t want to pull people over. Folks routinely drove way too fast. Does that mean the state patrol isn’t handing out tickets anymore? Get real. Anyone who spends time on the freeways knows that there are plenty of people speeding and plenty of people getting pulled over. Covid also coincided with the George Floyd killing. This was a double whammy for the police. Crime went up (because of the pandemic) and then a lot of dumb-ass white people finally realized the lyrics to those songs written by black people weren’t all imaginary. Sh** like that really happens. Who knew?

        But things are slowly getting back to normal. Crime is still higher than it was before the pandemic but way below what it was in the early 90s. Note how people were saying that “Seattle is dying” before the pandemic even though it was the opposite: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/is-seattle-dying-not-if-you-look-crime-rates-from-the-80s-and-90s/. Damn facts — they always get in the way of a good rant, right?

        So yeah, they will start enforcing the fares again. As before it is unlikely that Metro will be heavy handed with the enforcement (no need to be, really). The vast majority of people will just pay. Only a handful will violate on purpose — just like before the pandemic. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn’t matter. A lot of those people would never pay (they will simply not ride the bus).

      6. I hate to say it, but I expect DOGE will cut lots of federal funding of local transit agencies. Transit agencies need to plan for the possibility of having federal support zeroed out.

        Fare recovery can only be pushed so far. But the big deal is keeping as many employers as possible in the Business Passport program, and as many additional employers as possible providing transit passes to some chunk of their employees, keeping the U-Pass afloat, and keeping student pass programs at other colleges.

        The piecemeal fare enforcement is mostly just performative, and a rounding error in the budgets, but necessary to keep the large institutional business partners.

      7. How much money does an agency like KCM get from the feds anyway? I would imagine it to be fairly small.

        But, yes, it has always been a fact of politics that transit agencies should not count getting any federal money for anything when a Republican is in the White House. It has always been this way and always will.

      8. Yeah, I think it will largely effect projects, not service. For Metro that means RapidRide. For Sound Transit that means … well most of what they do. But in either case it shouldn’t effect operations.

      9. Nathan Dickey,

        I know that local transit get’s zero federal money for operations… and they use the “fare box recovery money” to help keep the buses rolling. But what if the fare box money doesn’t cover it? Because it’s currently not and we’re heading into a recession. Metro will be crying for money in 6 months. You should know this because they’re so worried about the “fare box recovery” numbers. If Metro was flush with cash, would they care? I believe transit service should be chained to “fare box recovery” whatsoever. It’s bad policy and you, of all people, should know that.

        Let’s move on to Sound Transit… they do receive federal money for building overpriced transit projects that may or may not be helpful to regional mass transit… what’s the West Seattle light rail price tag at this point in time?

        So is are you and “The Urbanist” going to support building some overpriced train line to West Seattle while Metro and Pierce Transit are forced to cut back bus service? Because that’s how it looks right now. Stand and deliver.

        Do you support building light rail when bus coverage has to be cut back due to lack of funding? And I don’t need ant stupid spin job here, just a yes or no answer.

      10. “I know that local transit get’s zero federal money for operations… and they use the “fare box recovery money” to help keep the buses rolling.”

        Some 80% of Metro’s and the other local agencies’ operations money comes from sales taxes. Re Metro’s farebox recovery target:

        “In December, the Metropolitan King County Council updated Metro’s fare goals, stating that the agency should recover at least 10% of operational costs, with a target of 15%. The policy is a “guiding metric rather than a strict requirement,” Switzer said in an email. Previously, fares were required to cover 25% of the system’s operations, with a goal of 30%.”

        This is from the Times article link “Metro to resume bus fare inspections” in the third-last paragraph. The article also has some other details on fare evasion and safety. Switzer is Metro’s public-relations person Jeff Switzer, who has been our primary information contact for several years.

        In past recessions in the 2000s and 2010s, Metro has suspended all else to keep the buses running on a full schedule as much as it can. This included laying off planners, meaning it couldn’t pursue non-committed restructures or longer-term planning. So it would likely do the same again if necessary. This moment is unusual because the East Link and Federal Way restructures can’t really be canceled I would think, and the I and J are close to construction and would need restructures too.

        One pot of money is Metro’s bus-electrification program. It has a county mandate to convert the entire diesel fleet to battery-electric buses in ten years or so. It should pause that and convert only a few buses at a time as they reach their end-of-life, because getting to switch from cars to buses saves more carbon than anything else, even if the buses are still diesel. The county council is considering the fact that battery-bus technology isn’t quite there yet, and it may not be able to get as many buses as it needs in the timeframe, and we can’t have mass cancellations because battery buses can’t do everything required on the charges they can get in full-scale operations. So the council may extend or downscale the timeline, and that could free up money for operations and service expansion in the meantime.

        Federal operations money as far as I know was temporary for the covid emergency, so that’s winding down now.

        Metro doesn’t have a lot of resources for other things. RapidRide upgrades are a trickle as regular resources are available and grants or third-party funding can be found. I assume the I (Renton-Auburn, route 160) and J (Eastlake-Fairview, route 70) will proceed as planned. The K (Kirkland) and R (Rainier, route 7) may have to be extended or canceled; we have no idea at this point.

        “I believe transit service should be chained to “fare box recovery” whatsoever.”

        Do you mean “not chained”?

        It’s hardly chained now. The farebox recovery target is a policy position, not a sine que non for service. Metro and ST Express have done several things since 2020 ignoring the target: adding service for equity, adjusting fares for equity, suspending fares during the pandemic, suspending fare enforcement after that, etc. These are all what has dragged Metro’s farebox recovery down from a 20% de facto floor in the 2010s to 10% or whatever the de facto floor is now. Metro can obviously afford it because it has been running buses for three years in this condition. But presumably it will reach a limit at some point. We don’t know when that might be or how much cuts, so it’s not worth speculating until Metro announces it and we can evaluate it then.

        “Let’s move on to Sound Transit… they do receive federal money for building overpriced transit projects that may or may not be helpful to regional mass transit… what’s the West Seattle light rail price tag at this point in time?”

        “So is are you and “The Urbanist” going to support building some overpriced train line to West Seattle while Metro and Pierce Transit are forced to cut back bus service? Because that’s how it looks right now. Stand and deliver.”

        Have you read our articles in the past two years? The Urbanist, Stranger, TRU, and Seattle Subway may be full “ST’s preferred plan”; we have no control over them. STB takes a middle-of-the-road approach, questioning ST’s WS/BLE preferred plan based on riders’-perspective and transit-best-practices princples, and offering lower-cost alternatives like Ballard Automated, Ballard At-Grade, West Seattle BRT (more links in third paragraph), more on West Seattle’s costs (Sept 2024), No DSTT2, and really No DSTT2.

        The STB editors and authors are divided on pursuing the full ST3 Link expansion given the current issues around WS/BLE, Everett, Tacoma, and Issaquah, so we’ve tried to honor both camps, and allow them to present their multiple viewpoints so that readers can make an informed decision. That’s why STB isn’t so single-direction on ST3 as it could be. The two sides are generally, “Post-vote design changes are bad for passengers and we can’t afford them” vs “If we don’t support ST’s preferred plan now, it will sour the political environment for any rapid-transit expansion for the next generation, as occurred when Forward Thrust failed”. So we’re taking a, “We think these alternatives would be better and cost less, but we won’t obstruct ST if it pushes ahead with its preferred plan regardless.”

        “Do you support building light rail when bus coverage has to be cut back due to lack of funding?”

        Suspending Link expansion beyond the almost-done Redmond and Federal Way will not help Metro at all, since it’s different tax streams and agencies. Metro’s budget issues have to be addressed in a Metro-specific manner, and the same with ST Express and upcoming Stride 1/2/3. Currently Metro and ST Express are running only 90% or so of target service not because of money, but because of the driver shortage and maintenance-worker/parts shortage. Suspending Link and Metro capital projects won’t help with that. Metro running low on operation funds is still a theoretical future issue, not now. ST has plenty of money for operations if it scales back or extends any of its Link capital projects.

        As to what ST can scale back, grant money can only be used for its specific purpose, but local tax revenue and fares can go to any of ST’s voter-approved priorities. So regular money can be shifted between capital, operations, and maintenance as ST decides. So it could scale back or extend some Link capital projects to either maintain or expand operations if it chooses.

      11. “So is are you and “The Urbanist” going to support building some overpriced train line to West Seattle while Metro and Pierce Transit are forced to cut back bus service? Because that’s how it looks right now. Stand and deliver.”

        You are conflating the Multi-County subarea equity tax mechanism ST uses for capital project funding with the funding mechanisms the local transit agencies use for bus service even though they are vastly different things and aren’t connected to each other in any which way.

        Metro & Pierce Transit do not directly receive tax dollars from Sound Transit for local bus service operations. Sound Transit subcontracts express bus service out to Metro and Pierce Transit and gives payments to the local agencies for it, but again that is a different funding steam and line item on the budget for both Sound Transit and local transit agencies from the capital project funding Sound Transit receives from taxes and other revenue sources.

        You can look at each of the local agency funding and budget documents for yourself, which will tell you that Sound Transit has no hand in local bus services like you’re implying.

        Pierce Transit
        https://piercetransit.org/2023-annual-report/

        Sound Transit
        https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2025-sound-transit-budget-at-a-glance.pdf

        Community Transit
        https://www.communitytransit.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/2025-approved-budget-pdf_dec052024.pdf?sfvrsn=8146b22_2

        Everett Transit
        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://everett.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php%3Fview_id%3D4%26clip_id%3D2436%26meta_id%3D108436&ved=2ahUKEwjF-bz7yOeLAxXsIjQIHdNxMrwQFnoECCMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0femAHfVS4ht_HsP6mHyNU

        King County Metro
        https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/executive/performance-strategy-budget/budget/2025/2025-proposed-budget-book/08_metro.pdf?rev=e0e74c3177d645cb8d1e7d7038d1ca36&hash=37473DE3594DF53208B60AC9B6F1DBC5

  11. Is the 1 Line running the full length, with no bus bridge, this weekend?

    Is the two months of special work in the tunnel done, or is there a last bit that was pushed back?

    1. This is the last weekend of the shuttle according to the revised schedule. I think there will be one or two more maintenance periods like this later this year.

      Pinehurst station construction continues until March 9. Shoreline South single-tracking may be over; I can’t find any reference to it continuing. But it looks like evening frequency is still reduced at 5:30pm to 15 minutes until both Pinehurst and Shoreline South are finished.

  12. Regardless of anything going on with ST, Pierce Transit and Everett Transit ought to raise their regular fares to $2.50. They are not Kitsap Transit. They are running real urban bus systems.

Comments are closed.