Route 14 trolleybus turns from 2nd Ave S to S Washington in April 1977 (Mitchell Libby). The trolleybus network was significantly revamped the following year. A similar view in July 2021 (note the 50 years of tree growth).

38 days until the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opens on May 10. Sound Transit recently announced opening day details.

As Seattle pulls out of the Big Dark, SDOT has travel guides for getting to events at the Climate Pledge Arena and seeing the cherry blossoms at UW. The Urbanist mapped out Seattle’s more than 17,000 cherry trees and 27,000 other blooming arbors.

Transportation:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

113 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Fix the L8”

  1. This evening…
    South Downtown Hub Open House
    Wednesday, April 2, 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.

    Union Station, 401 S Jackson Street, Seattle, 98104

    Join us for a progress update on ideas for community and transit hub connections in the Chinatown-International District (CID) and Pioneer Square neighborhoods.

    https://southdowntownhub.participate.online/index.html

    1. Sound Transit needs more focus on expected volume of transfers between SODO Stations 1 & 2, where more than half of all downtown transfers are likely to occur. And then plan for a lot of vertical conveyances to not have station-to-station transfers become dangerous bottlenecks.

      Or go big on cross-center-platform transfers in SODO, with one track on each line at each of the two levels.

      The vast majority of North Spine – South Spine transfers will occur in SODO, suggesting the two northbound tracks serve one center platform, and the two southbound tracks serve the other center platform. This would also handle the West Seattle – Ballard transfers.

      West Seattle – South Line transfers would need vertical conveyances, with ample redundancy.

      As someone pointed out recently, East Link – South Spine transfers would also involve same-direction transfers at SODO, plus direction-reversing transfers at ID/CS. So, let center platforms in SODO do most of the work, so that a few vertical conveyances only have to handle direction-reversing transfers, and the small amount of ingress and egress.

      .

      Consumer traffic within the South Downtown Hub will be as it is today: a place to grab a bite to eat on the way to events in the neighborhood. Want more business in the South Downtown Hub? Allow the residential spaces to grow upward and develop a stable base of customers throughout the week. Want more foot traffic? Allow more people to live there!

      1. I’ve been saying for several years that the SODO same-direction, cross-platform transfer would be the single best design change that ST could make. The transfer volumes will be as heavy as 3-5 station boardings added together.

        I’ve even attended a few of ST’s workshops to simply plead for this design change. After spending 90 minutes of “presentation” by staff (forced meeting ending of 120 minutes), I got a few minutes to say something as one of a group of commenters. When I finally got my time they only let me talk to a person that has no technical training and I have to even explain what a cross-platform transfer is. Of course, the report of the meeting does not say anything about my comment.

        I even talked to Seattle Subway about it. They too didn’t give a crap about what I was saying.

        Thanks for understanding and important solution. I wish more people did — and cared. It’s surreal how many people just don’t get it!

      2. We need a transit rider on the ST Board. The quickest path to get there would be to elect Katie Wilson as mayor.

      3. For the fiftieth time: there is no reason to spend a billion dollars and close the busway for a “four-track main” through SoDo.

        Until West Seattle is extended south to Burien (and even then only if the corridor grows significantly), WSLE will never need headways shorter than the ten-minute “policy” mandate ST sets itself to provide.

        Similarly, unless Line 1 is trenched, elevated or bridged over so that it can run more frequently than ten trains per hour, it will never exceed that load on the shared trackway.

        That totals sixteen trains per hour; the existing tracks through SoDo are completely adequate to serve both lines.

        ST is already committed to overpassing both Lander and Holgate, and it would have little to no effect on traffic flows if Lower Brougham Way were closed on both sides of the tracks. Perhaps a pedestrian under- or over-pass would be needed to conect the bus station to southbound Link, but that can’t be very expensive.

        So stop writing about complicated, multi-platform “patches” to ST’s enormously wasteful folly! Sixteen trains per hour can be accommodated on the existing trackway. NO MORE TRACKS!!

        Instead, advocate for this:

        1) Both Lines 1 and 3 pass through DSTT1;

        2) SoDo station is reconfigured to be center-platform — under traffic — with curves to necessary “shooflies” “cut-in” over a couple of single-tracked weekend work periods, like real transit systems throughout the world do all the time. See Note 1 below for implementation staging;

        3) WSLE (if built given the current political environment) would be diverged southbound from Line 1 just south of SoDo, preferably by adding a turnout to the elevated structure at the start of the curve into Forrest Street, or, if that proves infeasible to construct, by taking the northbound lane of the busway for two blocks south of SoDo station and operating it as a “single-track” section. See Note 2 for implementation details;

        4) WSLE, again if built, would preferably be merged with Line 1 directly south of the rebuilt SoDo station and would use the orphaned block of the Bikeway between Forrest and Lander. The rear few feet of a couple of warehouses would have to be taken for this to occur.

        If this proves politically impossible and WSLE is built, it would merge with Line 1 using the existing grade-separated connection from the Outer Loop at Forrest Street to the northbound Spine Main and its connection to Forrest Street ST plans to build;

        5) If WSLE is not built, turn Line 3 trains back using the Forrest Street Outer Loop;

        6) Automate all three lines north of the merge point between Line 2 and The Spine Main just south of CIDS. Operators would reverse trains at a center-platform in University-Seneca Street, to give them time to exit the cab northbound, lock it and exit the train at University-Seneca. After a short break they would board a southbound train, enter the cab and boot-up the controls in preparation for taking control at CIDS. Only the front door would open on the left side to the Operator-only platform;

        7) Automation would make use of the pocket track at Northgate easy and quick, obviating the necessity for revamping the pocket or adding a second one for rapid turn-around of the frequent Line 1 trains.

        Conclusion: this makes ALL transfers either in-line stand-in-place or reverse across-the-platform.

        Note 1. Order of implementation:

        a) Create a temporary southbound platform for enough north of the existing southbound platform that a low-speed S-curve can be accommodated between the platforms.

        b) Build a new southbound trackway where the existing southbound platform is placed.

        c) Build the S-curves, cutting them in over one of the single-tracked weekends

        d) While that is going on, replicate a couple of the City Light towers thirty feet east of existing ones, reroute the power to the new poles and remove the old ones.

        e) Complete steps a through c on the northbound track

        f) tear up the existing tracks between the S-curves

        g) Build a new, wide center,llatform where the north- and south-bohnd tracks were

        h) In order to maximize quick access from buses to northbound teains, add a second northbound-only platform east of the northbound track.

        Note 2 “Single-tracking” The Busway

        This would be done by using traffic signals at the south end of the single-lane section and at the southbound platform of the busway SoDo station, moved north of Lander.

        When a bus turned onto the busway from Spokane, it would send a warning signal that a southbound bus should leave the SoDo busway station within fifteen seconds (or so, TBD by testing). After that count-down expired, the departure signal would hold hold red until the north-bound bus cleared the single-lane.

        Similarly, when a south-bound bus did leave the SoDo station the traffic signal at the south end of the single-lane would turn red until the southbound bus cleared the single-lane section.

      4. Yikes! I murdered Note 1 step “d”. Here’s a better version

        d) While that is going on, replicate a couple of the City Light towers thirty feet east of existing ones, reroute the power to the new poles and remove the old ones.

        [ed: Fixed it (I think)]

      5. @ Tom:

        I pretty much have given up on trying to convince either ST or Seattle Subway advocates for rethinking the tracks at SODO station. They simply don’t want to take any other ideas seriously — even when the ideas are commonly used in rail systems around the world, save hundreds of millions of dollars and make transfers easier and faster for thousands of riders each day. And the riders that benefit would be systemwide — from Snohomish riders going to SeaTac to Tacoma riders going to UW to especially every West Seattle rider that will be transferring at SODO until 2045 or later.

        What to do? It’s dealing with a bunch of people that just want to build expensive stations that work less well for users. I just don’t get the ST mindset.

        Have you taken up your ideas at either ST workshops or with a Board member?

        I won’t get into the weeds if what’s the right design. That just is a recipe for failure. What I’m instead curious about is how to get ST to revisit any of these costly plans that they refuse to deviate from — even though it makes transfers worse for riders.

      6. Al S,

        Don’t let anyone shout you down. If DSST2 happens, the same-direction cross-platform transfers are what will make transferring tolerable.

        Don’t be deterred by those still fantasizing about shutting down all of ST3 except Ballard Link, and somehow connecting Ballard Link into DSTT1. They don’t have a feasible plan, and you do.

      7. Thank you “Ed.” You corrected it perfectly.

        I just wish someone at ST would read it.

        Al No I haven’t, because I have no “standing” to comment. I do not live in the Sound Transit Service Area, so they REALLY wouldn’t listen to the 79 year old auslander shaking his cane.

        I was the first person to bring up boring DSTT1 in a public forum just before I moved to Alaska and then Texas. I put a typed and photocopied document advocating boring on every Council Member’s desk before the forum, urged them to read it in my two minutes and quite literally got out of Dodge that day.

        I guess it worked that time.

      9. Yes, TT and Al, it really bothers me that Sound Transit is ignoring the transfer needs of riders and instead plans to spend a ton of money on a huge glass palast just to make operations easier.

      10. What is transit for?

        Answer: Passengers. Specifically, to make peoples’ movement easier.

  2. Can anyone explain the post pic? What is that 1977 route 14 is doing? What’s its routing? Is it coming from or going to Summit? And if it’s turning on S Washington street, why is it signed up Main street?

      1. Hmmm, we could use a transit historian. From what I can tell, the 14 used to just go from downtown to Summit. You can see that in this old photo of the schedule: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerzombie/11960463075. So the name of the bus route was simply “14 Summit”. Note how that part of the reader is lined up just right. The “Main St” is simply the direction it is heading. That would be flipped every time the bus turned around (if you were lucky). The bus started at Summit and was heading towards Main Street (to presumably lay over).

    2. My first Metro trip in Seattle was around 1979, on the 7 to The Record Library at Broadway & Denny, in a building called the Broadway Arcade that’s gone now. The 7 was a trolleybus, but none of the buses looked like that then. They looked more like the current buses, with a white and yellow color scheme.

      1. I rode the buses in the late 70s. I can’t remember the color scheme, but I remember when they got new buses. They went from being very round to being very boxy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Seattle#/media/File:Seattle_AM_General_trolleybus_downtown,_1986.jpg. The switch occurred in 1978 (according to the records) which sounds right (I would have been in high school).

        I have a feeling they changed the color scheme sometime in the 70s but didn’t change most of the trolley busses until later. This is a photo of an old one: https://collections.trolleymuseum.org/items/209. You can tell it has the modern color scheme (even though the picture is black and white) but is otherwise the same bus. My guess is they painted a few of the old ones but left some of them with the original paint pattern (until they replaced all of them with the more modern, boxy ones).

    3. On review of the historical maps Ross linked and closer inspection of the photo, it seems the route is not turning onto S Washington, but crossing it and continuing on 2nd Ave S to Main.

    4. I have an old Route 14 schedule from 1975. At that time, the 14 was a stand-alone route that ran from Summit to downtown. During off-peak times, the 14 ran from Summit to downtown and turned back on the familiar Pine/2nd/Pike path. But during peak hours the 14 continued southbound on the now-removed 2nd Avenue wire and live looped back to Summit via Main Street to 3rd Avenue to Pike Street.

      In 1975, Mt. Baker bus service was provided by Route 10: Capitol Hill to Mt. Baker via 3rd Avenue. By 1979, the Mt. Baker leg was re-numbered as Route 14 and connected to Summit.

    5. The 14 was already running between to Mt Baker when I first saw it, so there must have been a restructure between 1977 and the early 80s. I looked at the Mt Baker end, and the 10 is serving that. I’ve never heard of the 10 doing that. It was just a 15th-Pine route, except for the years it was through-routed with the 12 at 1st Avenue.

    6. Route 14 had two halves; the south half served Mt. Baker and South Jackson Street; the north half served Summit; they were through routed via 3rd Avenue. The picture may show a Route 14 North inbound trip terminating; it would then go to Atlantic Base via 5th Avenue South and not serve the south half.

      In fall 2012, Route 47 replaced Route 14 North.

  3. Tulip festival ($) activities around Mt Vernon this month. The Times article includes non-car access instructions: “Greyhound buses and Amtrak trains both service Seattle to Mount Vernon. From there, you can ride Skagit Transit Route 615 Monday-Saturday to the Beaver Marsh and McLean Road stop and walk to the nearest tulip fields, about a quarter-mile to a mile away.”

    I’ve been to Roosengaarde and Tulip Town. I like Roosengarde best, so that’s where I’d go again. You can walk through the demonstration garden and through the production fields, and I think there was a barbecue lunch.

    If you don’t subscribe to the Times, here’s the tulip festival site with an interactive map.

    1. I think the best way to do the tulip festival car free, by far, is to take a bike with you on the bus to Mt. Vernon. Note that you don’t need to use Greyhound, you can take the Skagit Transit 90X from Everett to Mt. Vernon for a fraction of the price (requires additional connections on Link and the 512, though). The bike avoids being constrained by the 615’s very poor frequency (it would be nice if they could run it more often at least during the tulip festival, but they don’t).

      The catch is that each 90X trip runs hourly and holds just 3 bikes, so if you do choose to do it, you’d better hope that nobody else does, or you won’t make it on the bus.

      In the event that you get delayed and miss the last bus (~5 PM, I think), the evening Amtrak Cascades trip can be used as an emergency backup option.

      The catch, of course, is

      1. Another option, though more time consuming, is to head to March’s Point Park and Ride (615 goes there too). The last bus going south from there that connects to the Clinton-Mukilteo ferry leaves March’s Point at 4:40 pm, and you wind up with nearly an hour to explore Oak Harbor (some decent restaurants are close to the transit center). But, at least it’s another option if you can’t get back to Mt Vernon in time.

  4. I’m kinda confused by WSDOT’s plan. Is this is a reversal of the earlier announcement that the I-5 bridge work was postponed to next summer? Or a partial reversal? Or something unrelated?

  5. ASM would be a very welcome improvement on Route E, especially since it has been demonstrated for Route A on the same WSDOT road. I don’t ride that route personally, but most of the time when I’m driving on Aurora, I notice 2 or more busses bunched and/or long stretches where it seems like the bus should be passing the car traffic, but no busses are evident. It did make sense to do it for G first, as it is supposed to be higher frequency than even Routes A and E. But hopefully they will get around to Route E soon.

  6. Following up on a topic from last Sunday: I was on a 255 today that changed drivers, during peak hours, at South Kirkland P&R. Once I realized the change was happening, I started my timer and clocked about 5 minutes before we were back in motion again. So, the total time was spent stopped at the P&R was well over 5 minutes.

  7. Can anyone here explain how the opening of the full, cross-lake 2 Line will occur? Let’s say the cross-lake service on opening day will begin at noon. The 1 and 2 Line service at 11 AM is going to look very different than the 1 and 2 Line service at 1 PM. Will the changeover be a seamless transition, or is it more complicated than that?

    1. 1 Line service will be unaffected by the 2 Line opening. Presumably ST will open the 2 Line “extension” across I-90 through Seattle to Lynnwood the same way they’ve opened other extensions. There will be “first train”, and then active 2 Line trains will (probably) simply start continuing westbound/inbound past South Bellevue. ST will have to carefully stage outbound/eastbound trains and time their departures to backfill eastbound/outbound service as inbound trains cross to Seattle and head up to Lynnwood.

      The only two “new” stations will be Mercer Island and Judkins Park. My guess is they’ll hold the opening ceremony at Mercer Island, since there’s a park-n-ride lot they can take over booths and they could close the 77th Ave SE overpass for opening speeches. Then, a westbound train can be the first to cross I-90 with all the luminaries, who will have a choice of riding all the new track to ID/C, or simply crossing the center platform at Judkins Park and crossing back over I-90.

      1. Thanks for that. Of course the 1 Line will be unaffected. Not sure why I said it would. As far as the opening ceremony, Mercer Island has Judkins Park beat on parking, but the east end of Judkins Park has a lot of open space nearby.

    2. ST will be fully simulating both 1 and 2 Line running their entire lengths and schedules several weeks before opening day. The full simulation won’t begin right away, but will ramp up over several weeks.

      During the full simulation period, 2 Line trains will run in service from Lynnwood to the ID. Riders will be kicked off the train. The train will cross Lake Washington without riders. It will go back in service at South Bellevue and run the rest of the way to Downtown Redmond. Then it will have the same thing happen in the return trip.

      The only difference in opening day is that riders won’t be kicked off in the middle of the route once it’s officially opened. I’m sure there will be a break in service that day to stage the ribbon cutting pomp but that will be managed as if it is a service disruption lasting a few hours.

      This is what is going on with LA Metro’s K Line near LAX right now. LA Metro will announce the opening date any day.

      1. This is happening right now on the 2 Line. Passengers are kicked off at Redmond Tech, then the empty train continues to Downtown Redmond.

      2. Yeah, it happens with all of the extensions. It happened at Northgate as well.

        This is a bit unusual though. On the East Side it will be relatively normal. Someone heading towards Seattle will have to get off the train at South Bellevue just like they always have. But in Seattle someone heading south will have to get off at CID (depending on the train they are on). Thus some trains will be marked “to CID” while other trains will continue to go south. If you are going south, suddenly the line you are on will have meaning (even though neither train will go to the East Side). If you are going north it won’t matter.

      3. I imagine there might be a couple of prepositioned, ceremonial “first trains,” perhaps parked on Mercer Island or Judkins Park, but other than that, I imagine that the Link Operators already operating in-service trains on opening day, won’t know until the last minute if they will be first, already-in-service first trains to cross the bridge.

      4. They won’t know when the ceremony will end and the VIPs have the first trip. The Starter Line ceremony ran long.

        The ceremony will be at Downtown Redmond station; see the “opening day details” link.

      5. @Sam,

        I wouldn’t get too worked up about the Full ELE opening just yet.

        ST has now missed both their internal target for the I-90 floating bridge dead tow test, and their publicly announced target for the test.

        Previously they had said publicly that the dead tow test would occur in Q1 of this year. Well it is now 3 days into Q2 and still no dead tow test. And with zero float in the schedule every day of additional delay theoretically equals an additional day of delay in the actual opening.

        Ya, ST might get lucky and gain a little time back here and there, but so far ST has been far from lucky with this project and with this contractor. I wouldn’t bet on “good luck” happening.

        That said, they do appear to be getting close. So maybe soon. Cross your fingers and wish upon a star.

      6. I expect the pre-revenue 2 Line trains to simply be marked “out of service” as they run between Lynnwood and ID/C. There will be a frustrating few months where every other train in Seattle will be unavailable to passengers.

      7. “And with zero float in the schedule every day of additional delay theoretically equals an additional day of delay in the actual opening.”

        I’ve seen trains at Star Lake several times now. I think Federal Way Link is looking like there’s no delay.

        I’m even wondering if they’ll open on the same day. Or ST may even open Federal Way first by bringing out of service trains from the East OMF on East Link tracks to add train sets.

      8. ST posted their February 2025 progress report: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/system-expansion-monthly-status-report-feb2025.pdf

        Compared to the January report: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/system-expansion-monthly-status-report-jan2025.pdf

        From January to February, scheduled start of pre-revenue service slipped from June 19 to July 24, and scheduled start of revenue service slipped from December 13 to December 27.

        Noteworthy:

        Project Float
        The project’s Recovery Plan includes 276 days of project
        float for a Revenue Service Date of May 18, 2026. Float
        calculations have been adjusted this period to reflect project
        performance against the Substantial Completion Date laid
        out in the project recovery plan submitted in March 2023.
        Completion of trackwork in Segment 3, the floating bridge
        remains the driving factor in the E130 contract, and
        subsequent handover of the track to the E750 systems
        contractor. Currently, the project is forecast to enter
        revenue service by December 27, 2025, with 142 days of
        float remaining.

      9. @Al S,

        The major issue with Full ELE is clearing the floating bridge for operation. The major issue with FWLE is clearing the long span bridge for operation. Both those stretches appear to be on similar schedules.

        That said, ST almost certainly won’t open both extensions at the same time. It takes a lot of resources to get one of these extensions open, and ST just doesn’t have the bandwidth to do both simultaneously. And this isn’t the kind of work you would entrust to new hires or temps.

        The danger here is that any major delays in Full ELE will also potentially delay FWLE. It would be a shame if ST couldn’t get both Full ELE and FWLE open in time for the 2026 World Cup.

        As of today the contractor on Full ELE still had white environmental tents over the tracks on the floating bridge in several locations, and in both directions. I am not encouraged.

      10. So who here now thinks there’s a good chance the full 2 Line won’t open before the end of the year?

      12. @Sam,

        With zero float days between now and a late December open, I’d say the odds of a 2025 open are pretty darn low.

      14. “Overall, our target is for trains to be on the floating bridge in Q1 2025, and to start pre-revenue service (which includes training for operators and maintenance staff, and continued testing to ensure stations, tracks, utilities, and vehicles work together as expected) in Q2, leading to a late 2025 opening.”  Sound Transit. December, 2024.

        “Then by the end of the year, the 2 Line will finally start to run past South Bellevue Station across Lake Washington, stopping at new stations in Mercer Island and Seattle’s Judkins Park neighborhood before connecting with International District/Chinatown Station downtown and then heading north to Lynnwood.” The Urbanist. January, 2025.

      15. Sam, are you implying that Sound Transit’s “target” for a late 2025 opening (and The Urbanist’s reporting on that plan) indicated the lack of a good chance of a later-than-2025 opening?

      16. The expectation has been that there’s a good chance it will open in late 2025, and a much lower chance it will open early 2026. If someone here has been consistently saying there’s a good chance the full 2 Line will open in 2026, I’d like to see the quote.

      17. I don’t understand this “float”. By “the project is forecast to enter
        revenue service by December 27, 2025, with 142 days of
        float remaining”, does that mean with 142 days of unexpected delays it will still open on December 27?

      18. @Sam: I think most people have been fairly skeptical of the “late 2025” date.

        @Christopher Cramer: “float” are contingency days included in the overall schedule that aren’t allocated for a specific task. ST apparently told the FTA the new project schedule for ELE will have revenue service by mid-2026. The mid-2026 service date is 142 days after all tasks are finished, assuming all current tasks take exactly as long as the subcontractors say it will take.

  8. A couple days ago I saw a KCM Orion on Queen Anne Ave signed “Spanish Class”. No number, no other message. What gives?

  9. Ross’s 1977 map is significantly different from what I experienced in 1979 or maybe 82 at the latest. The 1980s network was mostly unchanged in 2008 before Link’s initial segment, except the DSTT restructure in 1990. I’ll add replies with the differences I see in each subarea.

    1. EAST SEATTLE:

      (Not including changes outside this area: e.g., 3W.)

      2. Current route, unchanged.
      3. Current route, renumbered from 12-Madrona/34th.
      4: Current route, renumbered from 12-23rd Ave S/Judkins Park.
      7: Moved from Eastlake to Broadway.
      9: Unchanged (Broadway).
      10: 15th-Pine only.
      11: Unchaned.
      13: Unchanged (19th-Madison). Later this segment became the 12.
      38: I don’t recognize this route. There was no service on Empire Way (MLK).
      43: New route on John-23rd replacing 76 (John) and 4 (Madison-23rd).
      48: Unchanged.
      76: I don’t recognize this route. (John)

      The Olive-John corridor was weird in 1977. Current routes remain on Olive-John. The 76 went north on Summit, east on Harrison, south on Broadway to John. Was East Olive Way unusable for buses? Was it trying to get two blocks closer to the Broadway Fred Meyer? (Ancestor of the Broadway Market I guess.)

      1. It looks like the 76 continued east to Thomas and then went up 13th to the turnback loop at 19th and Galer, too.

    2. SOUTHEAST SEATTLE:

      A lot of changes; I probably can’t get them all.

      1. Beacon Ave to Dawson Street, renumbered from 3. (Current 36.)
      7. Current route (Jackson-Rainier), unchanged.
      9. Missing (Rainier).
      14. Mt Baker, split from 10.
      27: Unchanged (Yesler-Colman Park).
      39. Maybe unchanged (Seward Park).
      42. Unchanged (Dearborn-MLK).
      48. Unchanged (23rd to Columbia City.)
      31, 38, 77. I don’t recognize these routes.

      4th Ave S: Had the 131/132, later 136/137. In 1977 had a 31 and 36, whatever they were.

      1st Ave S: 15, 18, and probably 21 unchanged (all West Seattle). I don’t recognize the 32.

      Spokane Street viaduct to Beacon Hill: I thought there was no service here. The 1977 map has a route 48 extension to SODO, and a route 31. (It was called the Industrial District then; the SODO name was created in the 2000s for marketing purposes.)

    3. WEST SEATTLE:

      15: Admiral Way to Alki. The 1977 map has several additional extensions/branches.
      18: Fauntleroy to ferry terminal. The 1977 map has several additional extensions/branches.
      20. Unchanged (Delridge to White Center).
      21. Unchanged. (35th Ave SW).
      37. Unchanged? (Alki Ave-Harbor Ave). I don’t know if it was also serving Admiral Way in the 80s.
      48. Not in West Seattle. The 1977 map has an extension to 16th Ave SW (South Seattle College), Morgan Street, and California Ave to the Junction.
      131: Current route (Highland Park). The 1977 map has a route 36 terminating at White Center.
      132: Current route (South Park). The 1977 map has a route 32 terminating in South Park. I don’t remember how the South Park Bridge evolved or whether other road changes affected South Park service.

    4. In January 1978, Metro unveiled a “New Look” that completely restructured local bus service. Somewhere in the STB archives there’s a copy of the pamphlet (I think it was posted by Oran V.). At that time, the trolley wiring was ripped down, supposedly for a one year while the new wires were to be installed. Of course, it took about 5 years to replace all the wiring.

      Some of the route changes effective in 1978:
      4 Montlake and 30 Ballard became the 43 Downtown to Ballard
      71, 72, 73 were introduced to replace the 3-way north end split of Route 7
      12 E. Cherry and 12 26th Ave S became the 3 and 4 and connected to Queen Anne
      10 Mt. Baker became the 14 Mt. Baker
      in West Seattle the 15 and 18 multi-tailed network evolved into the 15, 18, 37, 49, 55,
      The 76 was replaced by the extended 9–remember the 9 Broadway trolley wire turned back before the University Bridge.
      The 38 was a connector between the 3 Jefferson Park and Boeing Field via 15th Ave S. There was another iteration of the 38 that ran along MLK (Madison Valley to Central District) and an even later version that went up and down McClellan St.
      Lots of other changes, too.

    5. You can sometimes find old maps on the web. The same Flickr user has a bunch of them: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerzombie/11943816314/in/album-72157625152559172. That is where I found the one from 1977. This is one from 1988: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tigerzombie/11943816314/in/album-72157625152559172. I haven’t found a map between 1977 and 1988 — it is quite possible that nothing significant changed between 1978 (after the big restructure) and 1988.

    6. For anyone who looked at the 1977 and 1988 Metro route system maps, are there any full or partial routings that existed back then, but are now gone, that you think should be restored? Example, a bus route used to detour through the interior of Harbor Island, but no longer does. However, I don’t think that routing should ever be restored.

      1. I think a few areas could use coverage but I don’t know where we would get the money. I’m thinking:

        1) The 25 in Montlake
        2) The 17 along 32nd Avenue NW (Sunset Hill)
        3) The coverage area of the 37 in West Seattle.

        In all these cases I wouldn’t necessarily resurrect the old routes, just some of the coverage areas. For example the 37 could run like that during peak, but off-peak it could never leave West Seattle.

      2. I have recently been thinking that a good replacement for the 17 would be looking at Route 28, which is through-routed with Route 132. How about through-routing Route 131 as a new route that follows Route 28 to NW 65th St. The route would then head west on NW 65th St to 32nd Ave NW; then north on 32nd Ave NW to NW 85th St for connections to Route 45.

      3. That’s a good idea. It would be one of the cheaper options since the 131 ends at 3rd & Bell and if you follow the 28 pathway it doesn’t take that long to get to 65th & 8th. It would be nice to double up service along there. It would also be nice to have crossing service on 65th. There are a couple issues though:

        1) You leave the northern part of 8th NW with half hour service. That section performs about as well as the southern section. Thus branching there isn’t ideal (you want each branch to be weaker than the trunk).

        2) A crossing route on 65th would be especially valuable if it ran frequently. For the most part you aren’t adding coverage or increasing frequency — you are creating a shortcut. But if the bus is infrequent then quite often it is better to just endure the existing transfer.

        It is a good idea. I’m sure I’ve considered it as well but it has that fundamental problem. With any trunk and branch system you want a lot more demand on the trunk than the branch. There are exceptions, of course. Sometimes you just live with the frequency/demand mismatch because there is no good alternative. This may be one of those times.

        Just to back up here, consider the corridors in the area — what I’ll call “Ballard” (everything west of Fremont/Phinney Ridge/Greenwood). There are only three that lack “frequent” service (a bus every fifteen minutes midday): 8th NW, 32nd NW and NW 65th. The 28 seems like the best option for 8th NW (at least between Fremont and Holman Road). Combining 32nd and 65th also looks like the best option for a bus on 65th. Now consider the options on the other end of 65th. Once it reaches 8th NW it would be nice if it could keep going up to Phinney Ridge but I think that is impractical. It will therefore go north or south on 8th (and overlap, which is less than ideal). Right now it could be an extension of the 61. If we did a big restructure (like so: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1aiyxTQSBn3SnlABGXMCAoDaBCEhQfl7t&usp=sharing) I could see it being an extension of the 45. (I kind of like that idea — even though it would cost money — I may change that map.) Of course it could go south, to Fremont (overlapping the 28).

        If the bus could just end in Fremont that would save quite a bit of money. Even if that was possible the bus would be a bit short. One possibility would be to go across the bridge and end at SPU. That isn’t that far and yet it is a solid anchor. Not only is SPU a good destination but that connects to buses going up the hill. For various trips — some of which are not that far (https://maps.app.goo.gl/BWQTN9k7qyihQ6kEA) — it would make a huge difference. The issue, really, is traffic around the bridge. The work being done for the 40 will help for southbound buses, but something needs to be done for the 31/32 so that it doesn’t get stuck in the huge traffic mess that exists now. If that was done I could see a bus doing that.

        Obviously that is a lot more complicated and more expensive than what you suggested.

      4. Phinney Ridge really needs east/west service, and I really don’t like the idea of an east/west route in the area jogging north, south, and north again to avoid serving it.

        What is exactly is the problem with 65th between 8th and Greenwood? Is the problem is just the turn between 65th and Greenwood being too sharp, maybe the bus could go straight to Linden to avoid that turn.

        If it did that, once could imagine a service restructure where the 45 shifts from 75th to 65th west of Green Lake (using Linden/Winowna to connect between the two sections), while the 61 is simultaneously extended westward to Golden Gardens to replace coverage currently provided there by the 45.

        Greenwood to UW is faster via 61->Link than via 45 anyway, and we end up with a more grid like network without a huge gap at 65th and two bus routes on 85th.

      5. It might be that the segment of 65th between Greenwood and Phinney is too skinny.

      6. Good gawd, sometimes I think some of the commentators on this blog have never even been to Seattle, or maybe just don’t get around very much.

        Have any of you actually been on 65th between Green Lake and Phinney Ave? That road is definitely too steep for a bus. And the slope transitions at the cross streets might even cause a long wheel base bus to high center.

        I’ve never seen any vehicle approaching a bus in size/length on that stretch of 65th. Not even a panel truck. Putting a bus on that route would be a total disaster.

        But hey, maybe Metro could just try it once as a test. I’d support that. With everything going on in the world right now I could use a good laugh. But I think Metro is smart enough to not even attempt such a thing.

        West of Phinney Ave isn’t as bad, but it would be a tight turn at Phinney. I suppose you could condemn that old espresso repair shop on the corner and open up the intersection a bit, but now we are talking total silliness.

      7. Lazarus, check the attitude. 65th is not too steep for buses: SDOT reports the steepest slope is about 14%. If that were too steep for buses, we’ve have no uphill service in downtown.

        It’s possible that the transition between the slopes is too sharp and a long-base vehicle would high-center at an intersection (my guesses would be either at the east side of 65th and Phinney or the west side of 65th and Sycamore), but that’s hard to tell without a formal survey and some math. I’ve seen some long-ish trucks take the hill, but trucks tend to have a higher clearance than buses.

        As I pointed out, I think the main limitation is that the segment of 65th by the espresso shop is too skinny. SDOT reports it’s 25 feet. For two 11-foot lanes compatible with buses, there’d only be 3 feet left for sidewalks.

        In the past, I’ve proposed splitting service such that an outbound bus could turn left from 65th onto northbound Phinney, and an inbound bus could stay on Greenwood and then turn right onto 65th.

      8. That road is definitely too steep for a bus.

        That reminds me of something someone wrote recently:

        Good gawd, sometimes I think some of the commentators on this blog have never even been to Seattle.

        Exactly. The person who claims that the street is too steep obviously has never been to Seattle. Oh wait…

        Anyway, buses run on streets that are much steeper than that. They have been doing so for decades. Buses like the one shown on the front page have gone up streets like Madison and Queen Anne Avenue. Speaking of which, Queen Anne Avenue is sometimes just called “The Counterbalance” after the funicular that used to run on it. It was replaced by buses a long time ago.

        Nathan is right. The bigger issue is the very narrow streets as the road approaches Phinney from both sides. This is looking west. This is looking east. There is a bit of a dogleg as well but I don’t think that is the issue — I think it is the very narrow roadway.

        Then again it is quite possible that Metro has simply never considered it. The network has gone through very few major restructures. You can see how it isn’t that different from the old streetcar network. Then you have this map from the 1980s. Again, not that different than today. There has been some consolidation (the network is simpler). There have been some truncations due to Link. But it is still a largely hub-and-spoke system, just with a few more hubs. It is not an efficient, anywhere-to-anywhere type of system of the type that Jarrett Walker or Steven Higashide write about (and several cities have implemented). If no one has seriously considered running a bus on Boren or forming a spine on Broadway by combining the 49 and 60 then they definitely haven’t considered a bus on 65th between Green Lake and 32nd NW.

        Part of the problem is that change requires sacrifice. There are bound to be winners and losers. If we just ran a bus on Boren (or 65th) it would mean running other buses less often. The opposite is true as well. If we do a major restructure based on running buses a lot more often it typically means some people have to transfer or walk farther to their bus. Metro has either been incapable or disinterested in making those sorts of changes the last few years.

      9. Lazarus, I agree. It’s a not a good idea. But not because of road grade, but because it’s mostly a single family home neighborhood with a narrow road. It’s also a neighborhood already covered by the route 28 and route 5. And asdf2 has history of saying transit riders should expect to walk to a final destination. A previous quote from them: “Without NYC level density, it is simply not possible to design a transit that caters to people unwilling to walk 1/2 mile …” The distance between the route 28 and the route 5 at 65th is 10 blocks. So it’s a 5 block walk from one of those routes to the center of the neighborhood, well within asdf2’s 1/2 mile walking rule.

        To the larger question, should there be more east-west routes? Perhaps. But definatley not at this location.

      10. @Nathan Dickey,

        LOL.

        65th between Green Lake and Phinney Ave is much worse than any of the E-W streets in DT Seattle, and for both of the reasons I state, in addition to others. Metro isn’t going to run a bus on that street.

        But hey. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when you guys pitch your “idea” to the professionals at Metro. You’re going to get laughed out of the room.

      11. it’s mostly a single family home neighborhood with a narrow road.

        Narrow road, definitely. But it is not mostly a single-family-home neighborhood. A bus that did this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Dzd2NNvG6tiP82Mf6 would run close to apartments pretty much the whole time. Here is a good map showing where the apartments are: https://jeffreylinn.carto.com/viz/681ff218-0a5d-11e6-8f50-0ea31932ec1d/embed_map. It would also connect to Ballard High School as well as other destinations. This wouldn’t be a coverage route, but part of a high-ridership grid in the area so that people could avoid big detours.

      13. 65th between Green Lake and Phinney Ave is much worse than any of the E-W streets in DT Seattle, and for both of the reasons I state, in addition to others.

        Bullshit. You claimed it was too steep to have buses. That is simply wrong. Look at the grade of downtown streets and compare it to 65th. Here is a cheat cheat for you: https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/01/17/the-steepest-streets-in-seattle/. Madison, James, Seneca — all over 15% and all streets with buses on them. 65th never gets to 15%.

        You are simply wrong.

        That is not the worst part. You post a comment that is rude — suggesting that everyone else can’t figure out the obvious — when it turns out you were wrong. Then you can’t even admit the fact that you clearly made a mistake. Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong?

      14. 65th is not just steep; it’s narrow. I lived at 65th & 15th NW, and when we came in a car we got off Aurora at Linden and turned west at 65th and went up it. At the time I thought it was a bit difficult even for a small car. I’m pretty sure it’s too narrow for two oncoming cars to pass, like several small streets around Greenlake.

      15. The range of solutions to east-west transit routes across Seattle’s north-south ridges will be (from most expensive to cheapest) tunnels, high viaducts, cable-pulled transit (funicular; gondola; sky tram), electric trolley buses or indirect routing (going north or south a bit before continuing east or west).

        These east-west streets around 65th are quite narrow. 85th and 46th have issues too. Inexpensive solutions are preferred but there could be difficulties with them.

        Plus the only major destination west of Phinney Ridge near 65th is Ballard High School (Phinney Ave is the easternmost attendance boundary). Outside of that, I see that even local transit trips would require transferring to get popular destinations from an east-west route. Plus, Green Lake is kind of an obstacle as is Aurora.

        The basic question is: Which one of these works best in this situation?

        Given the expected poor cost-benefit of a major capital investment, it may be best to pursue an indirect route strategy like what Metro has today. Perhaps Metro just needs to connect more directly to Roosevelt Station or RapidRide E through a route restructuring.

        And I must add that I’m amused by how some people are quick to declare that Routes 48 and 8 are redundant in the CD with their elevation differences north of Cherry with a similar horizontal difference to Phinney Ridge between Route 5 and RapidRide E — but not here. In that instance, I read suggestions to even eliminate even north-south service while here the discussion is not only maintaining north-south service but adding east-west service.

        Or how there’s not a local, frequent east-west bus across Beacon Hill between Jackson St and Columbian Way, which is also steep and also a long north-south distance.

        Perspective…

      16. “What is exactly is the problem with 65th between 8th and Greenwood?” Quote by asdf2. That neighborhood is absolutely mostly single family, and that’s what I was referring to. Yes, I know that asdf2 then qualified their original statement and said the east/west route could do some other routing if “the turn was too sharp.” They originally said they wanted to see a routing that goes from Greenwood to 8th on 65th, and thought the only bad part about the idea that a turn was too sharp.

      17. Maybe the nature of the street means such a route would have to be served with a smaller bus. But, a smaller bus is still service. I don’t like the attitude that if a street can’t handle a giant articulated bus, it can’t have any bus service at call. Cars drive 65th St. all the time, so what people are essentially saying is, if you live in Phinny Ridge and want to go east/west, go get a car. Sorry, but that’s not good enough.

        And existing bus routes do cover some very steep streets. Look at the 2 going up Queen Anne, or the C line going up Columbia. Obviously, in snow, running buses up grades like that would be asking for trouble. But they can and do do so during normal days.

        And, yes, I have personally both walked and driven up 65th between Latona and Greenwood many times. I know what that area is like.

      18. Another point to consider. Route 250 in Kirkland has a turn from State to 68th which is too tight to do in a big bus. Rather than not run the route at all, Metro runs it with smaller buses. So, there is precedent for using smaller buses to run routes that big buses can’t.

      19. asdf2, do you remember saying this? “Without NYC level density, it is simply not possible to design a transit that caters to people unwilling to walk 1/2 mile …”

      20. It’s also a neighborhood already covered by the route 28 and route 5. And asdf2 has history of saying transit riders should expect to walk to a final destination.

        I think you are missing the point. This would not be a coverage route. It is not designed to serve the areas between the north-south buses — that is simply a bonus. It is meant to create a grid — a way to get from one place to another by going towards your destination with at most one transfer. Instead of this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DkiuEhFQHKbb6AW6A or this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/biGTMdPcxA5rehxQ8, you would have a bus that just goes straight across. This also means that two-seat rides are much easier as well. It really doesn’t matter if a portion of the route doesn’t have that many people. The same can be said for much just about any bus route. The key is that they form a grid so that you can get from place to place in a straightforward manner.

      21. OK, let’s put aside the whole idea of the street being too steep. That idea was started by someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about. The street is not too steep.

        But it may be too narrow. Yes, maybe a van could serve it, but I doubt a full size bus could. I’m not talking about an articulated bus, either. I mean a 40 foot bus. From what I can tell the narrowest part is just east of Phinney Ridge and is about 18 feet wide, or 9 feet each direction. I think a bus would fit in the lane, but it would be very tight. It does seem to get wider as you get away from Phinney Ridge though — so maybe a bus could squeeze through there every fifteen minutes. The drivers would have to test it.

        You also have to make sure the roadway could handle it. Keep in mind, a simple change in TangleTown — that just about everyone said would be an improvement — has been help up because of SDOT. Who knows when they would get around to improving the road if it needs it.

        Of course it would be nice if a bus could go that way, but there are dozens of ways of improving the system that don’t involve hoping that we can run a bus on a street like that.

      22. @Mike Orr,

        “ 65th is not just steep; it’s narrow.”

        I think you get it. There are a lot of problems with running a bus on 65th between Green Lake and Phinney Ave. the street is too steep, the slope transitions are too abrupt, it’s narrow, and there is that little offset jog where it crosses Phinney. The street is clearly woefully inadequate for bus service.

        But hey, if people on this blog think they know better than all the professionals at Metro, then more power to them. Let them go talk to Metro and see how far they get.

        But count me out. I know better. A lot better.

      23. I think you get it.

        You are the only one who doesn’t get it. You are the only who who claimed that the problem was that the road was too steep and insulted everyone for not figuring that out. Then, when corrected, you refused to acknowledge your mistake. You still haven’t admitted you were wrong. You somehow believe that 65th is steeper than Madison.

        Meanwhile, others on here pointed out what could be the problem: the road is very narrow. But it is also quite possible there is no problem at all — Metro has never actually considered it or tested it. Why on earth should we trust your opinion given the fact that you were clearly wrong and still won’t admit it?

        But count me out. I know better. A lot better.

        Good God, what arrogance. Usually people boast when they are right. You do so when you have been proven wrong.

      24. My last comment on this subject is to make a correction to false claim asdf2 has made in the past, and again repeated in this thread. They said … “Another point to consider. Route 250 in Kirkland has a turn from State to 68th which is too tight to do in a big bus. Rather than not run the route at all, Metro runs it with smaller buses. So, there is precedent for using smaller buses to run routes that big buses can’t.”

        The exact opposite is true. 60 foot articulated buses make tight turns, or any turn, more easily than 40 foot buses. 60 foot buses have a tighter turning radius than a 40 foot bus due to the shorter wheelbase, as measured from the front to the back wheels on the 40 foot bus, and from the front to the middle wheels on the 60 foot bus. And the tail section of the 60 foot bus approximately follows the front section.

      25. @Sam — Correct. That is a common misconception. People assume that the articulated buses have a worse turning radius when it is actually the other way around.

      27. Seattle coverage holes per RossB (e.g., 17, 25, 37).

        Route 17 covered Sunset Hill until fall 2012. Route 17 was sacrificed for routes 40 and 31-32. The coverage was provided by shuttle Route 61 until fall 2014 when service reductions deleted it along with its companion Route 62, a peak-only reverse peak direction service that shared deadhead with Route 29. The reductions of fall 2014 were probably no longer needed, as the sales tax had recovered from the great recession. I think Metro should have filled the coverage hole at the next restructure in fall 2021; instead, it added new coverage with Route 79.
        Today, I suggest Sunset Hill be served by Route 32; it could be swung over from Uptown; its pathway would remain as is east of 15th Avenue West, coincident with Route 31. Sunset Hill should have two-way all-day coverage due to density and history; it had a streetcar that terminated near NW 65th Street and 32nd Avenue NW.

        Route 25 in Montlake. I might leave this one alone and asked folks to walk to Eastlake or 24th Avenue East. Route 25 was restructured in fall 1998 when Route 65 was formed. The Laurelhurst-Montlake version was deleted in March 2016 with U Link, though Laurelhurst got a shuttle route that was later deleted in fall 2021 and now has robust service by routes 31-32.

        Route 37. This hole arose with the reductions following I-695. In 2000, the midday service was deleted. With Covid, the one-way peak-only route remaining was suspended. However, the coverage is provided by routes 773 and 775 funded by the ferry district. The ferry district collects tax revenue countywide but only provides service to district eight.

        If the South Graham Street station is ever opened, Seattle may want service connecting with that station. It will not be easy.

    7. The Link initial segment opened in July 2009; the Metro changes were in September 2009; the airport station opened in about December; the Metro changes were in February 2010. Electric trolleybus overhead was extended to Link for routes 14 and 36, but not Route 7 as SDOT wanted curb space for bike path.

      There were many changes between 1980 and the initial segment. Executive Locke shifted sales tax to service from capital and canceled a CNG project. During the terms of Locke and Sims there was continual improvement and change.

      not exhaustive…..
      1991, Kent restructure. 1995, Route 8. 1996, Renton restructure. June 1997, Shoreline and SE Seattle. fall 1997, Bellevue consolidation around Route 226 (later absorbed by ST Route 550). 1998, both north and west Seattle; many routes were changed; routes 15-18-21-22-56 paired; Route 65 formed; Route 25 reduced; Route 31 formed. 1999, the Aurora consolidation. 2002, Route 522; routes 41 and 372 changed; Route 307 deleted. 2003, NKC restructure; midday trips added to Route 358. 2005, Route 7 split; Route 49 formed. 2004, Ambaum consolidation; Route 120 formed. 2005, DSTT closed. 2007, DSTT reopened; the DSTT routes were shifted.

  10. happy to see King county metro bring back fare enforcement. we need tougher security and enforcement to give the system back to the people that obey the law

    1. Of course, 30 inspectors is an inadequate number. It should be many more. They used 30 when fare inspection was suspended for Covid; since then, lines G and H were added; they intend network-wide inspection.
      POP fare inspection is a win-win-win for network: faster fare collection; all board boarding and alighting; faster service; fewer fare disputes; fewer operator assaults; with better security and speed, more ridership and fare revenue. It should be a topic for security task force sponsored by ATU 587.

      See RTC packet pages 44-61
      https://aqua.kingcounty.gov/council/agendas/RTC/20250319-RTC-packet.pdf

  11. On the topic of the 8, I had occasion yesterday to be in the passenger of a car driving along the 8 from 7th/Denny to Broadway. While we did pass the bus, we only got to Broadway a couple minutes faster than the bus did, but in the time it took to park, the bus pulled ahead. This is an ordinary day, without particularly bad traffic.

    So, even a very slow bus like the 8 can be competitive with driving, but only if the bus runs frequently. If the wait for the bus exceeds the time it takes to find a parking place in Capitol Hill, driving still wins. So, frequency, for a bus like the 8 is very important.

    1. Frequency is important for all the buses, really. I think the 8 should have better frequency but its slow speed is part of the problem. It costs more than it should to run a bus along there. Ridership along there is not nearly as high as it would be if the bus is faster. Both make it difficult for Metro to justify (or even afford) increased frequency.

      If the 8 could avoid traffic it would routinely beat a car — that should be the goal. I’ll occasionally drive along Aurora and find myself leap-frogging the RapidRide E. But if there is any traffic the E will pass me and I’ll never catch up. If they added BAT lanes on Denny then the 8 would be similar and probably be faster than a car more often than the RapidRide G.

      1. Yeah… there are bus lanes along a short stretch of Denny but that’s not enough to make the 8 reliably resemble its scheduled headway.

        The thing about being competitive with driving is… it’s not just trips that strictly follow Denny, there are also trips where drivers have less congested options than Denny. Some of those might involve transfers to the 8 if you’re on the bus. Because the 8 is so bad the notion of transferring to it seems laughable. But there are lots of trips where Link transfers are out of the way or involve long walks. If the 8 reliably made its headways and wasn’t dog-slow those transfers could work. To beat driving, move the needle on modeshare, and allow transit to really improve the city… it’s, like you say, routinely beating the cars on Denny so the bus is competitive with bypassing Denny in a car.

      2. Yes, absolutely. That is what I was getting it. People take out of the way trips because the 8 is too slow. The fact that the 8 performs well *despite* the terrible congestion is really striking. First of all, even if it was a completely independent route with no good alternative the slow speed would hurt its performance. Ridership per hour will always suffer if the bus can’t get vary far in an hour. But this hits it twice. First by that and then by people who simply give up on the bus because it is too damn slow. Making it faster would have a huge impact on our system. Riders who endure the slow 8 would have a faster ride and those that suffer with huge detours to avoid it wouldn’t have to.

    2. Route 8 op ed in Urbanist.

      First bus lanes seem inappropriate; BAT lanes are needed; general purpose traffic will need to make many right turns.

      The current SDOT actions are inadequate. The addition of no right on red will probably slow the buses.

      My suggestions
      Close Yale Avenue; it attracts traffic to the southbound on ramp of I-5 that congests eastbound Denny Way. Traffic would adjust and use Howell Street or even the deep bore.
      Add BAT lanes in about the segment on Urbanist map. Traffic would adjust.
      Add bus bulbs at two stops on John Street at 12th Avenue East.
      Shift Route 8 to 23rd Avenue from MLK Jr. Way between John Street and South Plum Street. This would save the jogging back and forth between 23rd and MLK. the coverage is not worth it. Today, routes 8 and 11 provide friction to the G Line on East Madison Street at MLK Jr. Way.

      Route 8 could serve stop proximate to the Lighthouse for the Blind. A westbound stop would have to added (the pathway would need to be tested: northbound, Plum, 25th, Walker, 23rd; southbound, 23rd, Plum, MLK)
      Route 8 could terminate near the Mt. Baker guideway on South Forest Street west of Rainier Avenue South, saving those transferring from crossing the busy arterial.

      Plow the minutes saved into more trips and shorter waits.

      1. It is common for people to write “bus lanes” when they really mean “BAT lanes”. Especially around here, where we have a lot more bus lanes than BAT lanes. My guess is they meant BAT lanes and the editors at The Urbanist didn’t catch it (or question it).

        I agree about closing Yale and adding BAT lanes. That would pretty much do it. I would like to see other changes to the 8 (in terms of routing) but those are bound to be controversial. Making it faster shouldn’t be.

      3. Bus lanes would make a huge difference. It isn’t that far. It is about a mile less than UW/Ballard. Without traffic an end-to-end trip takes a lot less time. There are plenty of cross streets but the traffic lights often favor traffic going that direction. It is the type of distance where surface transit has a big advantage.

        Besides, one of the selling points of a gondola is that it would complement a faster 8. It would get plenty of trips because of the shorter walking distance (for those specific trips) while lots of people would just get on a fast and frequent 8.

  12. SDOT continues to add new things to Rainier in the Judkins Park neighborhood.

    The new pedestrian signal at Rainier and Grand was installed and started working these past few days.

    The signal priority phase for buses pulling out of the Judkins Park stop is working. Oddly, it works even though the lane is still blocked with construction barrels and when no bus is there. The result is that the loop ramp is backing up onto the I-90 mainline.

    Meanwhile the over 2000 new apartments just south of the station are opening up. Oddly, there aren’t notable ground level commercial tenants yet.

    https://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/WASEATTLE-3d94607?wgt_ref=WASEATTLE_WIDGET_450

    1. Cool. If I remember right there were a bunch of safety issues recently — hopefully that is being cleaned up.

      The signal priority phase for buses pulling out of the Judkins Park stop is working.

      Is it this light here (on the far right — to the right of the no-right-turn sign) heading southbound? If so, the traffic light is supposed to give the bus a head start when the light turns green that direction — is that the idea?

      1. Yes that’s the idea. There is a white bar given to buses that comes on about 5-10 seconds before the southbound Rainier light turns green.

        I was just there an hour ago, and I see that the southbound barrels are now removed. I didn’t see the light triggered so maybe it’s now in a responsive mode (rather than an automatic one for every signal cycle regardless if there is a bus).

      2. Sounds like the barrels were triggering the light. I’m not sure how those triggers work, but it sounds plausible (they aren’t tiny barrels).

  13. Capitol Hill station entrances will close this weekend for lighting and security upgrades. The north and west entrances will alternate. The east entrance (the elevator to Denny Way and Cal Anderson Park) will remain open full time.

    1. It’s nice they’re doing upgrades like this, I hope some of the downtown tunnel stations get a similar treatment.

  14. Upcoming articles: Articles have been coming in batches the last few weeks, with gaps between them. This appears likely to continue, as there are some ten article drafts in the refining stages but none are ready yet, and dozens of other stub articles behind them. The weekly Sunday movies and Wednesday roundups will continue, and other articles will be posted when they’re ready. The last two weeks have had several announcements that have required last-minute articles, so that’s partly why they were so prolific.

  15. Since some of the rail clips broke or failed at Wilburton, and they had to be replaced with a heavier duty clip, I wonder if other sections of tracks will eventually require the heavy duty clips.

    I’d also like to know the cause of the clips failing. Does it have to do with them not being heavy duty enough? Were they installed incorrectly? Were they defective?

    I hope someone follows up to find out the reason for the clips failing.

    1. Like any product, the steel has to be a carefully produced formulated to provide the right tension and elasticity. It also has to go through a carefully controlled heat treatment process. Any one of those steps could lead to problems.

      “Since Pandrol is good at what it does, many “copycats” have entered the field, and engineers must use caution when buying elastic fasteners from foreign or domestic sources. Pandrol makes all of its clips for the U.S. market in the States.”

      https://www.trains.com/trn/train-basics/ask-trains/pandrol-rail-fasteners/

      1. @Glenn in Portland,

        I’m sure they will look to the two obvious things first. 1). Were there any installation errors/damage? And 2). Were there any defects with the clips? Either a manufacturing issue with that lot, or maybe counterfeit parts not meeting spec that some how got into the supply stream?

        You are obviously a professional on the heavy rail side, so I’ll ask this side question. One thing I’ve always been sort of curious about is how the clips are retained in position. Are the clips purely retained in position only by spring forces? Or is there something about the housing geometry on the baseplate that keeps them in position?

        Just curious. Because the loads are immense and highly cyclic, and I’ve always wondered if the clips could work their way out of the housing (socket) over time. They certainly don’t seem to, but why?

      2. I’m far from an expert in these, but the older type (“e clip”) is mostly held in place by the spring tension. The more recent “fastclip” type apparently need to be installed in the tie during manufacture of the tie, and is captive to the tie.

      3. @Glenn in Portland,

        “…the older type (“e clip”) is mostly held in place by the spring tension….”

        Exactly why I ask. I’m used to the concept that unsecured fasteners are a safety risk, so those e-clips always sort of bothered me.

        I always thought there must be something about the clip/housing geometry that prevented movement beyond just spring tension, but it is sort of hard to tell once the clip is installed. But they seem to work well, so I’m sure the industry has it right.

Comments are closed.