Why it takes so long to build transit, studies edition. (RMTransit)

This is an open thread.

26 Replies to “Sunday Movie: Excessive Studies”

  1. According to Sound Transit’s ridership dashboard (https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership), the Lynnwood link extension has averaged approximately 6,000-7,000 daily riders from October 2024 to January 2025 (around 3,500 in Lynnwood and 1,000 in each of the other stations).

    However, during that same period, Northgate station lost about 5-6k riders (compared to the same time last year). This suggests that Lynnwood Link only added around 1,000 (!) daily riders.

    This is is only about 30-40% of the 2024 riders projected by Sound Transit in its service plan before the extension opened (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2024-service-plan-phase-one-rail-service-plan-draft.pdf, page 14).

    Is this a data anomaly, am I missing something, or is Lynnwood Link a failed project?

    1. It’s daily boardings (almost all inbound) rather than total ridership or boardings + exits (both inbound and outbound).

      Still the net increase is still disappointing.

    2. December to February is ST’s slow period, so we won’t know the full ridership of the Lynnwood Link extension. Also, Link’s low reliability over the last several months has impacted ridership among choice riders.

      1. Yes, the drop in ridership is likely seasonal and the outages didn’t help. In general it is tough to determine ridership since it varies so much month to month.

        At this point though it doesn’t look very good. If you compare the five stations (Northgate, 148th, 185th, Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood) to the same month last year it appears as though we are getting an additional 1,000 riders each month with the addition of the four Lynnwood Link stations. Here are the numbers from last year to this year:

        October 9,835 to 10,514
        November 9,543 to 10,673
        December 9,494 to 9,183
        January 8,137 to 9,183
        February 7,987 to 8,947

        Ridership in December 2023 at just Northgate Station was higher than it was in December 2024 for Northgate, 148th, 185th, Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood combined. Clearly that was an outlier but in general it appears like the net increase in those five stations is about a thousand riders a month. If you look at overall Link ridership (for the same five months) there is a much bigger increase:

        October 80,261 to 105,787
        November 78,676 to 100,964
        December 73,932 to 82,982
        January 66,917 to 82,411
        February 62,842 to 78,599

        I’m not sure what to make of all that.

    3. There’s other criteria beyond additional riders. There’s increasing mobility freedom, rider convenience, frequency, getting transit out of congestion and car-collision bottlenecks, and bringing transit up to a level that a large metro like Seattle-Lynnwood should have and that average peer cites in the industrialized world have.

      My friend in north Lynnwood says Lynnwood Link cuts her total travel time in half on the best days when all the bus transfers align (119 to Ash Way, 512/201/202/Orange to Lynnwood, Link to Capitol Hill). Before Lynnwood Link, the 201/202/Orange were not options, and when she took Link northbound to Northgate, the 512 would leave just before she reached the bus stop and she’d have to wait for the next one, and there was congestion between Northgate and Lynnwood.

      The full expected service is not in place yet. The full 2 Line (at least Lynnwood-Redmond Tech) was supposed to open in 2022. The better the service, the more people will be attracted to it, and the more enthusiastically they’ll spread word about it among their friends and acquaintances.

      2. There’s other criteria beyond additional riders.

        Absolutely. But this is one of those changes that was expected to get a lot of new riders as the express buses were replaced with Link. There are no Community Express buses to Downtown Seattle any more. Swift Blue now ends at a Link Station. Various buses in the area are geared towards delivering riders to Link and yet it hasn’t added up to that many riders. The 510 got 1,106 riders last month. That is more riders than three out of the four Lynnwood-Link stations.

        It is obvious that the system is better for a lot of riders. But it is also quite possible that some riders preferred the old system (like those that continue to ride the 510). Overall I think it is a much better system but it isn’t obvious it was worth the money. (To be clear I would have not ended at Northgate — it was a terrible terminus — but I’m not sure we needed to go all the way to Lynnwood.)

        More than anything it suggests that there is no reason to keep building to the north. We are getting diminishing returns. This will likely continue as Link expands northward.

        It is probably a much better value to just invest in bus service. For example one of the few places in Snohomish County I would even be interested in visiting is Downtown Edmonds. Yet transit to there still sucks. It takes almost an hour from the Northgate Transit Center (even though it is a 20 minute drive). Places along Aurora are similar. Obviously Link (or the RapidRide E) is not the problem — the buses in Snohomish County are. While they have made some important improvements, most of the system just isn’t very good. Lynnwood Link definitely helped as they were able to funnel money away from the express buses to other routes. But any extension will only help minimally when what they really need is just more money to run the buses.

      3. How is ridership counted if a lot of riders don’t pay?

        Ridership at each station is counted via sensors at the doors. That has always been the case and does not reflect how people pay (or whether they pay).

        ORCA ridership is a different beast and we (at Seattle Transit Blog) don’t have the numbers for that. It is too bad since ORCA data would give more clues in terms of transfers. Back in the day (when people had to “tap off”) it would have given us trip data (e. g. how many riders boarded at the U-District and alighted at Capitol Hill).

      4. “How is ridership counted if a lot of riders don’t pay?”

        I’m not sure whether you meant technical counting or that non-payers shouldn’t be counted. As Ross said, automatic door sensors provide a second count. Fares are a side issue and the rate is set arbitrarily by agency policy. In other words, fares could be free, and ideally would be, but not until we get comprehensive frequent transit and deal with the social issues. What matters is butts in seats and increasing mobility freedom (the ability of people to go to more places), because that improves the economy, tax base, public health, and environment for everybody else.

  2. Does anyone know why Shoreline North/185 has split platforms?
    Very confusing for chronically absent-minded folks like myself.

    1. It looks to me as though they did that to avoid a slightly more expensive bridge on 185th by avoiding widening it for two tracks that are spreading apart to fit a center platform. It’s unfortunate, because that would have made the station more expensive, in the end. A center platform also could have extended under 185th to hit both sides of the street.

      1. @Glenn in Portland,

        It’s not just the span of the underpass that is the issue. 185th St slopes downward from the east abutment of its I-5 overpass. In order to widen the LR underpass they would also need to reduce the slope of 185th, or lower the level of the tracks and platform via an excavation. And both of those approaches would add both costs and integration issues.

        And ST already had to raise the level of 185th just with the current design. The house on the SE corner of 5th and 185th always was in a bit of a hole. It’s in an even bigger hole now.

        And if you raise 185th you also need to raise 5th. And ST also did this with the current design. It would be much worse with a larger underpass.

      2. A center platform also could have extended under 185th to hit both sides of the street.

        That would have been a more important change (in my opinion). I get that center platforms are better (even when no one transfers). I’ve made the mistake of going to the wrong platform as well. But overall it isn’t that big of a deal.

        On the other hand with a station like 185th (designed as a bus intercept) it would have been really nice to have an entrance of both sides of the street, thus simplifying bus-to-Link transfers. It looks to me like all the buses are forced to loop around and end at the bus depot next to the station (correct me if I’m wrong). That is annoying enough for a bus that ends there but especially bad for the 348, which keeps going on 185th. Not only is this annoying for through-riders, but it ends up costing Metro extra money in terms of service to make the detour.

        While it would have been ideal for the Pinehurst Station to straddle 130th, at least they aren’t forcing the buses out of their way to serve the station. The buses will just stay on the main corridor.

    2. What do you mean by split platforms? Does Shoreline North have side platforms instead of a center platform?

      The downtown tunnel has side platforms because King County didn’t want the cost of bulging the tunnels out around center platforms. The oldest Link stations from Stadium to Rainier Beach have side platforms because ST thought that was good enough. TIB and SeaTac have center platforms because they were interim termini so northound trains would leave from both tracks.

      Side platforms are annoying when you go down to the wrong one, when you have an opposite-direction transfer (as SeaTac-Eastside will be), or when you change your destination en route and turn around.

      With U-Link and Northgate Link, ST finally accepted that center platforms were better and worth it. I thought Lynnwood Link was like that too, but I’ve only been to the intermediate stations once or twice and don’t quite remember. The 2 Line has several side platforms, but several of them are on the surface so that may be why.

      1. I think most people know this but some don’t: The reason that there are side platforms downtown is because it was originally a bus tunnel. The buses could serve people on the “curb side” (opposite the driver) as they would on the street. This allowed them to use regular buses. The buses could also pass buses (which is why it is pretty wide). The main reason why ST hasn’t converted it is because it would take a fair amount of work. You would have to build center stairs/escalators/elevators. You would probably want to move the tracks to increase the space for the platform island.

        If riders are expected to turn around at the station it is much better to have center platforms. Otherwise it doesn’t matter that much (although as you mentioned it is annoying when you go to the wrong platform). Typically they choose side platforms because it is cheaper (at that station). In New York they sometimes have side platforms with only one entrance (on each side) from the street. Thus you have to cross the street if you are headed one direction or the other. The key with side platforms is good signage.

      2. @Mike Orr,

        Shoreline North/185th Station has side platforms. I beleive because of the issues related to the close coupling with 185th St.

        “ The downtown tunnel has side platforms because King County didn’t want the cost of bulging the tunnels out around center platforms”

        This is not true. Metro could have easily eliminated the side platforms and just slightly increased the size of the breakdown lane and installed a center platform instead. The result would have been center platform stations with a smaller and cheaper excavation and station structure, and with fewer verticals conveyances to maintain.

        Why didn’t Metro go with the cheaper center platform concept? Because in Metro’s mind buses drive on the right and load on the right. The idea of having buses swap sides when entering the tunnel never occurred to them. Drive on the left and load on the right works perfectly with existing buses. Just look at the old Northgate Station.

        And buses are highly unreliable, especially in the 80’s with the early deployable wheelchair ramps. So having a center “breakdown lane” actually did have some value. Because buses do “breakdown”. Nobody knows this better than Metro.

        “Side platforms are annoying when you go down to the wrong one….”

        The NB platform at Shoreline North/185th Station is easily accessible from 8th Ave at street level. No need to go up, down, or around anything.

        Additionally there is no real reason to be making a Link to Link transfer at Shoreline North/185th Station. And anyone who suddenly realizes that they are going the wrong direction can either go up then down at Shoreline North/185th Station, or simply stay on the train to the next center platform station and make a cross platform transfer there.

      3. Why didn’t Metro go with the cheaper center platform concept? Because in Metro’s mind buses drive on the right and load on the right. The idea of having buses swap sides when entering the tunnel never occurred to them. Drive on the left and load on the right works perfectly with existing buses. Just look at the old Northgate Station.

        So let me get this straight. It never occurred to them even though it did occur to them elsewhere. That is absurd. Sorry, you are wrong. The main reason is cost and speed. The buses would have had to switch over to the other side at each end. You could have had the buses wait for other buses and that would have slowed down the buses considerably. It is worth noting that the bus tunnel was designed to handle a huge number of riders with buses arriving every few seconds during peak. Don’t forget the buses also had to transition from diesel to trolley-mode (further complicating things).

        The other option would be to build ramps so that the buses could avoid that. This gets to cost. It would have been a lot more expensive to do that. It would also be an all-or-nothing thing. It is quite likely that building all the stations as side platform was considerably cheaper than building all of them as center platforms. It is different with a train (or with buses that have doors on both sides) — you can mix and match. Some can be center and some can be side.

        It is pretty common to have side platforms for metros, let alone grade-separated busways. Here is a picture of Brisbane’s busway: https://www.busnews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/cultural-centre-1-2-08132449-1536×1024.jpg. Center platforms are more common on surface streets as a way to avoid turning cars (e. g. RapidRide G, Van Ness, Albuquerque).

        Ultimately it comes down to cost — which is the same reason that ST hasn’t converted *any* of the stations. Now that the buses have been kicked out, you don’t need to do every one — we could just change CID (the main transfer point). But that would cost money that they don’t want to spend. It is more important to expand ever outward to Fife, Ash Way and beyond!

      4. Side platforms are annoying when you go down to the wrong one….”

        The NB platform at Shoreline North/185th Station is easily accessible from 8th Ave at street level. No need to go up, down, or around anything.

        Are you sure? From what I can tell if you go to the wrong platform you have to walk up and over. You can’t cross the tracks.

        Additionally there is no real reason to be making a Link to Link transfer at Shoreline North/185th Station.

        No one said otherwise. We are just pointing out that in general a center platform is easier to use. You can follow the crowds to the platform and then figure out which way the train is going. It is not that big of a deal but Laila has clearly made the mistake of going to the wrong platform and I’ve done that as well (at CID).

        To be clear I’m not saying ST made the wrong choice here. They likely saved quite a bit of money with side platforms. We are just saying that if it costs the same you might as well have center platforms. The only time you definitely should spend extra money is when riders will reverse directions (like CID).

      5. The primary factor should be passenger mobility and convenience. That’s what transit is for. I’ve seen no legitimate argument for side platforms. They just add unnecessary friction, which wastes people’s time like traffic congestion.

      6. “And buses are highly unreliable, especially in the 80’s with the early deployable wheelchair ramps.”
        Not so much that as more of a specific model of Metro bus. The Breda DuoBus 350 (high floor articulated trolleybus) was kinda notorious amongst metro operators for being unreliable at times, prone to breaking down (especially as they neared retirement).

      8. @Zach B,

        “ Not so much that as more of a specific model of Metro bus. The Breda DuoBus 350….”

        Metro made their design decision to incorporate a breakdown lane in the bus tunnel well before they took possession of their Breda fleet and started to realize just how bad they were. The decision was based on Metro experience with their pre-tunnel fleet, which also had persistent reliability issues.

        But hey, the old “bus tunnel” is now a “rail tunnel” and is fully owned by ST. ST still has to live with the consequences of Metro’s design decisions, but at least the bad days of limited tunnel operating hours, limited peak service, and poor maintenance are behind us. And we will almost certainly never see another bus tunnel again. And that is a good thing.

      9. ST still has to live with the consequences of Metro’s design decisions

        No they don’t. They could retrofit a station or two to have center platforms. It is not very complicated.

        You seem to be blaming Metro for what is clearly the best part of the entire system. It is the only section that has proper spacing. We are all very lucky that King County (and Metro) designed the downtown tunnel — not ST. Yes, it would be nice if it had center platforms but that would probably cost a lot more than just retrofitting a station or two. You wouldn’t have to change every station and you wouldn’t have to worry about buses switching sides.

    3. The nuances of platform placement involve design limitations that may exist at a station, including the nearby overcrowding mentioned here.

      I think it’s worth mentioning that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires elevator access to each platform. While one elevator meets the requirements, two is preferable. The big advantage of a center platform is its ability to serve both directions with one set of vertical devices — and is more likely to have things like two elevators or a down escalator.

      Which gets back to one of the most aggravating aspects of Shoreline North station specifically and of Lynnwood Link generally: The decision to remove escalators. That decision adds elevator use which in turn increases the likelihood that the elevator will be out of service. At this station, there is no escalator (up or down) at the main entrance at 185th and only one elevator there. There is a second elevator at the north end. Getting to or from the southbound platform can be a pain — literally.

      It’s a sad day when an agency defaults to ADA minimums for its transit system. Redundant vertical circulation remains a low to non-existent priority for ST station design — and yet everyone complains when an escalator or elevator is out of service. The blame gets focused on maintenance rather than design.

      When the stations were designed for DC as well as many foreign systems, there have been usually at least three escalators grouped together. Here we are lucky to get one! And if your arthritis is an issue for walking down 40-60 steps, there may be a working elevator and that elevator may be working and may be clean enough to ride.

      ST’s de facto message to the public: Use the stairs or don’t ride!.

      1. “The big advantage of a center platform is its ability to serve both directions with one set of vertical devices”

        No, it’s to allow passengers to turn around or transfer to an opposite-direction train (SeaTac-Eastside) without leaving the platform. The ability to consolidate elevators is a secondary fiscal efficiency. We mustn’t get the priorities confused. The reason to have all the normal conveniences for passengers is it makes transit mobility the most effective, and that should be a baseline requirement.

Comments are closed.