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

WSDOT opened the state’s first e-bike rebate lottery today (Seattle Bike Blog). The state will award about 10,000 rebates at random. Households earning less than 80% of their county’s median income can get $1,200 off a qualifying e-bike; higher-income applicants can get $300.

Local Transportation

Other News:

Opinion:

This is an Open Thread.

112 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Save Curby”

  1. The idiotic trade war with China is going to put the kibosh on ebike rebates, because ebike sales are going to stop after prices double. Most of our precious bike shops are going to close. They could stop this in a minute but they aren’t going to.

    1. Good! As an ACTUAL BIKE RIDER I’m sick of e-bikes whizzing by me at 40mph on bike trails. And as a pedestrian I’m sick of the same thing on sidewalks.

      1. As an e-bike rider who hauls my kid up hills on it, I appreciate that it opens a transportation option that would otherwise be closed to me.

      2. Ebikes are speed governered to 20 mph. The people who go faster are the spandex clad tour de France wannabes in pedal bikes – they’re not on ebikes.

        In any case, the tariffs and resultant bike shop closures will impact pedal bikes too. As well as Like bikes and escooters. Uber will also get more expensive because cars will be more expensive. Buses will become more expensive to operate, although the service is subsidized, so it may not go up in the fare.

        Even if you already have a car or bike, you’re not fully insulated because the tariffs will impact the cost of replacement parts if anything breaks.

      3. Class 2 e-bikes are speed-governed to 20 mph. I assume Daugherty is complaining about people on Class 3’s, which shouldn’t be in bike lanes or on paths, but you know how people are.

    1. Lazarus,

      As far as Sound Transit goes, it’s all over but the crying. The raw estimates for the West Seattle freeway mean it’s time to scrap the whole project. Finish up the projects currently under construction and turn everything over to local transit agencies. Sound Transit is out of money and billions underwater.

      Dow is trying to do exactly what almost every locally elected official tries to do, he wants to be the visionary hero and save the day. As voting citizens it’s our job to step up and shut him down. When people run for office, they have this huge, grand vision for changing things and I respect that. Everybody wants change. The problem is we elect a person for 4 years and they want to spend money on their “vision” that needs 20 years of debt repayment after they’re out of office.

      So the answer to Dow is no. No borrowing money for light rail projects. No borrowing money to build some huge gawd awful complex of government buildings Seattle doesn’t need. Just no to all of it.

      1. Here comes the weekly roll out of the boring but predictable”Sound Transit is out of money and everyone there is a stupid incompetent moron and I would run things better” stump speech.

        As if you’d run things better, it’s easy to say “I can do better than these people” when you’re in the armchair in the living room of your home and not actually having to run it. You haven’t given any solutions other than “shut it down” because the reality is you got no arguments other than being irrationally angry at Sound Transit like Abe Simpson yelling at the clouds.

      2. You realize there’s another person who thinks he knows better than everybody and wants to shut everything down out of a misguided belief it will make everything super. The stock market is going through the floor because of it.

      3. Zack B

        I’ll fill you in on the Trump masterplan here. Cut funding to Liberal cities and watch them fail. Sound transit actually has a lot of local tax money to work with without the Feds chipping in. The smart move is to recalibrate, restructure and keep moving forward. Better express bus service? Better maintenance of the light rail already running? Better security and hiring more drivers?

        What Trump and his supporters are counting on is Liberal cities not being able to change…. and projects like the West Seattle subway getting pushed 10 years down the road on paper (that really means never built) while the already functioning light rail falls into deep disrepair and buses don’t run because of a never ending “driver shortage” .

        Liberal circles seem to love the word “resilience”. We’ll see if Sound Transit has any soon enough.

      4. Most MAGA people don’t even know West Seattle exists, much less a light rail project there.

      5. Here comes the weekly roll out of the boring but predictable ”Sound Transit is out of money and everyone there is a stupid incompetent moron and I would run things better” stump speech.

        I can’t speak for tacomee but I have never said that ST are incompetent morons. Quite the opposite. I have a lot of respect for the politicians who happen to be on the board. But the problem is, they don’t understand transit and think they do. This is a really bad combination and unfortunately it is really common.

        Consider what happened with the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya. You actually had a very well educated, calm set of officials. Obama is smart. Hillary Clinton is smart. (I voted for both.) But neither of them are experts on the region. The experts on the region actually said we should just live with Gaddafi. But Clinton (having committed sins of omission in both Yugoslavia (initially) and Rwanda) wanted to help the rebels overthrow Gaddafi. The experts said it would lead to a long civil war and turmoil, destroying one of the more prosperous countries in Africa. The experts were right, Hillary Clinton was wrong (and Obama was wrong in deferring to her). The point is, Obama and Hillary Clinton didn’t understand the area and didn’t listen to the people who do*.

        The same goes for Sound Transit. They aren’t listening to people who understand transit. Either they are ignoring them or they aren’t even bothering to talk to them. Get a room full of transit experts together and start discussing “the spine” and you will reach a consensus fairly quickly: it is a stupid idea. Just keep running express buses and commuter rail. Yet the board still assumes — with no evidence to support their case — that this is not only a good use of money but an essential project.

        This is the problem. The people on the board — the mayors, the county heads — they know how to run their cities. But they don’t know squat about transit and they refuse to ask people who do.

        *To be fair, at least Clinton and Obama had the discussion. So far as we know, the ST board has never consulted with transit experts. They have just made the ridiculous assumption that it is a good plan.

      6. Since the point of the Link extension to West Seattle appears to be checking the “Link to West Seattle” feature box, the obvious budget option would be to run surface rail up from the south.

        Bear with me for a moment: you put a wye junction just south of SR-518 where the Airport Expressway splits, then run the new branch line west around the airport and into Burien along a widened 152nd, placing Burien Station in the underused parking lot across from City Hall. Now give Ambaum Boulevard the MLK treatment all the way up to White Center, follow Delridge then Sylvan up to High Point, and finally take Morgan west to a terminal at Fauntleroy Way, leaving room for future expansion north along Fauntleroy toward the east side of Alaska Junction.

        Ta-da, problem solved. With no need for expensive bridges or tunnels, this plan puts a Link station in a spot that is not so far from the geographic center of West Seattle, which technically solves the problem, that being all that seems to matter. Dow Constantine gets to declare victory and go home without saddling our grandchildren with debt.

      7. I whole-heartedly support this idea. This whole “all tracks must lead to downtown Seattle” premise is absurd.

      8. “But the problem is, they don’t understand transit and think they do. This is a really bad combination and unfortunately it is really common.”

        “They aren’t listening to people who understand transit.”
        To be fair, we could say the same thing about our own knowledge here as well from me, you, mike, nathan, or anyone else here. There are limitations to our own knowledge and expertise in transit planning and while we can infer about how we’d do x or y for a plan, restructure, or expansion. We aren’t actual planners who work for ST who have the information and know how to do things.

        What I’m getting at is it’s easy to say “I can do better than these people” it’s another to actually do the job for real in the field. Many of us would likely fall flat on our face if we actually had to do their job.

        While many of us are knowledgeable on a surface level understanding to operating a transit agency as we’ve ridden buses and trains for long periods of time, including multiple decades. Many of us don’t really have the knowledge to building capital projects, environmental reviews, budgeting, building route networks, or stop spacing from the ground up like the people who work for ST do. What they’re doing as well requires a Masters or PhD level of knowledge, which many of us don’t have either.

        Do I wish the BoD was different in terms of governance, sure. But they aren’t incompetent either.

      9. Maybe if we didn’t spend 9 years after the ST3 vote to come to an overbudget preliminary design on just one of four planned lines. This is insanity, complete wasted time.

      10. Mars Saxman, you are proposing to provide West Seattle with “MLK-style” tram/LR service via Angle Lake. Burien, White Center and High Point????????

        I get the “not everybody wants to go to Downtown Seattle” argument and stipulate its wisdom, but there’s an even more convincing one as well: “Almost NOBODY in West Seattle wants to go to Angle Lake.” At least, not if they really want to go anywhere north of Rainier Beach.

        It’s simply too far out of the way for most West Seattle trips.

      11. There are two high-frequency limited stop, remarkably expensive rapid-rides already going downtown, that do the trip far faster for most riders in West Seattle than a light rail ever would.

        So why don’t actually expand transit options, rather than destroy them.

        And do so in an area that is not prohibitively expensive to build new housing. I wouldn’t just do I junction, I’d do an entirely new line connecting West Seattle, and Burien to Renton and the Kent Valley.

      12. @Tom Terrific – my proposal was a bit of satire. The West Seattle link extension will be a remarkably expensive way to not improve transit service very much, and seems to be motivated more by a desire to say “we built Link to West Seattle, now vote for us again” than by any concern for its utility. My proposal for a similarly-useless rail service would allow the relevant politicians to make the same claim without having to waste so much money about it.

    2. Dow started in the CEO chair last week. The 75-year financing idea is insane.

      1. Nathan Dickey,

        But what other choice does Dow have? I totally agree that saddling tax payers with 75 year bonds is downright crazy, but even if the Feds keep paying their share, (doubtful), there’s just no way to pay for upcoming projects with the tax money that’s coming in the lifetime of anybody who’s reading this.

        The big story over the next couple years will the collapse of Liberal cities without Federal funding. Looking at the services a city like Seattle provides… housing, transit, roads, parks, etc… funding these is often this huge complex web of State, County, City, private and Federal money combined. Losing Federal funding means the “funding web” needs to contract and reform to provide services with the “local” money. Or just blame it all on Trump and give up?

        Dow is in a really tough spot here. I know many of us thought that Dow wasn’t the right person at the helm of Sound Transit, but honestly, who else even wanted the job? Tough to hire a new skipper when the boat’s sinking.

      2. This is a state structure and an ST board decision. Dow in his CEO position has little to do with it. The board may have primed the state earlier and Dow may have been part of that, but we don’t know how much it did or how much Dow was involved in it.

      3. “who else even wanted the job?”

        We don’t know the other fifty candidates or five finalists, or how much they were qualified or how much they wanted the job. But they applied for it and stuck through the process, so they must have wanted it.

      4. Mike Orr,

        I have a pretty good reason to believe the 5 other “finalists” don’t exist. I’m guessing you understand how hard it is to keep hiring for a position like Sound Transit CEO private? With no names getting leaked? No leaks? No names, no interviews.

        The longer the process went on without leaks to the press, the more sure I was that Dow had a “gentleman’s agreement” in place with the board (he appointed many of them after all). The fix was in from the very beginning.

        Now the dude is CEO for a week and he’s pitching a 75 year bond idea with the State? He’s been working on that for at least a year now. Everybody on the board knew about the plan before they hired him. The lobbying in Olympia has been going on for months now, back channels only of course.

        Maybe Dow knows nothing about transit… but he’s good at manipulating the State Government. That’s why he’s CEO

        But in the board’s and Dow’s defense, what do you think the next move is?

      5. Yes I agree.

        Why tie up the bonding capacity for that long? Why extend ST taxes for a period twice as long to pay for it? Will the debt service be higher in the long run?

        A newborn this year will be retired by the end of the period and 1/2 will already be dead. Shouldn’t they have a say in this “time limited” taxation?

      6. @ Tacomee:

        “ The big story over the next couple years will the collapse of Liberal cities without Federal funding. ”

        I think it’s more likely that the collapse will be low density suburban areas built in the half of the last century (1951-2000). Replacing aging streets and water lines and everything else built to serve low suburban density will be increasingly overwhelming. The prognosis for a place like Auburn looks bleak to me.

      7. I think it’s naive to assume that if the federal government successfully cuts off funding to “Liberal” cities (and by proxy, their “moderate” or “conservative” suburbs), there won’t be political or fiscal consequences for the federal government. It’s important to remember that most federal funding comes from the economic engines of those rich liberal cities, and the cities already only get pennies back on their federal tax dollar. If liberal cities get none of the federal funding they already pay for, what happens when citizens of those cities realize they should just stop paying their federal income taxes?

      8. Al S.

        I see your point. Auburn’s problem is that, in reality, part of Greater Seattle. At least as far as the State and Federal governments are concerned. Worse yet, as far as the State government is concerned, Auburn is a red headed step child to Seattle.

        As far as sustainability is concerned…. I’d rate States like Texas, Florida and Utah behind Washington State. Many Red States have bigger issues than Washington does in long run…. it’s a toxic mis of suburban sprawl, global warming/ climate disasters like tornados, aging infrastructure and voters allergic to paying higher taxes to fix anything. Utah has plan to build “affordable housing” on Federal lands… but no plan on water management. The Utah GOP is very good at just kicking the can down the road a bit, but sooner or later, they’ll run out of road (water).

        Greater Seattle and Sound Transit aren’t really all that bad off. There’s enough money to have a good regional transit system without Federal help. There’s absolutely not enough money to dig a tunnel to West Seattle (even with Federal help).

        Sound Transit (and Greater Seattle government in general) need to make choices here and there’s no easy way forward. Or we can all pretend the 2nd tunnel is going to get built and light rail to Tacoma, Ballard and West Seattle is still going to happen. That’s my fear. Sound Transit will fail to deliver and simply blame the Federal Government.

        I’m 100% a new plan.

      9. Nathan Dickey,

        What has Trump promised before being elected that he hasn’t done?

        Seattle is 100% going to lose Federal funding. My guess is Seattle pols and residents get all mad about it and take legal action to get the funding back and on and on and on…. instead of coming up with a hard and sober “plan B”

        In reality, Seattle is in a better place after losing Federal funding than most other places in America. Politically? It’s a shit show about to happen. Cooler heads must prevail here. Come up with a strong plan B. That’s the job of this blog, The Urbanist, The Seattle Times.

        Go ahead and try to skip paying your Federal taxes if you want. Jesus dude! You know who believes in not paying taxes because they disagree with the government ? the John Birch Society? Posse Comitatus folks? Sovereign Citizens?

        Trump just took Columbia University to the wood shed and beat their ass. I suspect all the other big universities and major companies will just fall into line now.

      10. Well, Trump promised to Make America Great Again, so I’m still waiting on that one. Maybe he’ll get to it in his “fourth” term.

      11. I think it’s naive to assume that if the federal government successfully cuts off funding to “Liberal” cities (and by proxy, their “moderate” or “conservative” suburbs), there won’t be political or fiscal consequences for the federal government.

        Sure, but that would be consistent with everything he has done so far. Of course all this (from DOGE to the tariffs) will cost the government money in the long run. They don’t care.

      12. “Seattle is 100% going to lose Federal funding.”
        It won’t, you can keep saying “Trump will do this or that” like you have propensity to do till on here with your tall tales and “expert advice” about anything Sound Transit and Seattle till your blue in the face. But from the looks into the actual news from my research not what you’re saying through the telephone grapevine , the FTA grants program is running business as usual albiet at a slower pace in terms of disbursement.

        Alongside Congress still controls the power of the purse, not the president and they have made that abundantly clear in their response to his tariff plan. Congress is still the entity that earmarks grant money for the FTA and DOT, not the president. And while Sean Duffy is the transportation secretary and has some say in a managerial sense, stuff is still approved more or less by other civil service workers in the agency who do the actual approvals and denials. So really, Duffy can say “I want to do x” but really his position in the agency is one that still has to get stuff done. He can make a song and dance about not disbursement of grants but in the end, they end up being awarded regardless. Which tells me the posturing is a nothingburger.

        And considering what’s happening in DC now with the president and his tariff plan, I don’t really expect much to change to the FTA or grant dispersement. There’s alao the fact that Trump couldn’t kill congestion pricing tells me a lot about how much we have to worry about capital grants. Which is not a lot. And that people like would rather be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian than provide opinions based in reality.

      13. “I have a pretty good reason to believe the 5 other “finalists” don’t exist.”

        @tacomee B.S. – you do not have “pretty good reason” to believe that… you just WANT to believe it. There is a big difference between the two.

      14. “Congress still controls the power of the purse, not the president and they have made that abundantly clear in their response to his tariff plan.”

        Talk to the agencies that have been destaffed, terminated their grants, are illegally clawing back money breaking contracts, and deporting US citizens. Transit grants may be at the soft end of this continuum, but we really don’t know what the FTA will do, when the courts will act, what the Supreme Court will do, or how much the administration will ignore Court orders or doubletalk that it’s complying when it isn’t. ONE house of Congress has voted against ONE of the tariffs. That’s not enough to accomplish anything, even that. I hope Congress and the courts and politically influential actors come through and save democracy, the rule of law, the economy, infrastructure, and public services, but so far it’s still looking like a casino.

      15. “Talk to the agencies that have been destaffed, terminated their grants, are illegally clawing back money breaking contracts, and deporting US citizens.”
        I’m aware and why I believe the hyperbolics about what Trump will do in relation to Transit is a lot of hot air at the moment. Congress has likely soured on Trump internally even if the Republicans won’t admit it to save face. They know that the midterms will likely be a bloodbath electorally. Which is why I’m not too worried about transit grants. Because often things like transit grants get earmarked in the budget omnibus and rarely get taken out.

      16. Well, tacomee, WE HAVE “come up with a plan”, and all you’ve done is crap on us with your resentful “Blue-Collar guys are the only real Americans” class envy bull-shit.

        With the exception of Lazarus who is in the tank for “The Full Spine” insanity, all the “regulars” have pretty much come to agreement that we should stop The Spine at Federal Way and Lynnwood, formally delist “TDLE”-Links, “ELE”, “WSLE” and “KILE”, and then build a Skytrain-like fully automated line from Upper Rainier to UW via SLU and Ballard in pieces as we can pay for it by and within the City. IOW, repeal most of ST3 and pay Pierce and Snohomish back, with fair interest, what they’ve lent North King.

        Other services by regional express buses can also be included, as the Sub-Areas request.

        This is “The Plan” that you so ostentatiously demand of a bunch of volunteers and interested parties, and it’s a DAMNED GOOD ONE!

        So STFU about a “plan”; it exists.

      17. [Reposting to put it in the correct thread.]

        ” Congress has likely soured on Trump internally even if the Republicans won’t admit it to save face”

        What matters is their votes, not how they feel. So far the Senate has voted to cancel one tariff, and it couldn’t get past the House. They could have turned down more than one nominee or voted on many issues, but they still haven’t. Now the budget is up for a vote, and Congress may confirm all the agency closures and reductions and then come for transit grants or blue state funding. So far they’re more afraid of a primary challenge than letting the country burn and become vulnerable to Russian manipulation. That may change, but it may not, or it may be too late when it does.

      18. Tom Terrific,

        Fair enough. But the plan is (and always was) easy in a scientific and engineering way. It’s the political mumbo jumbo that always bogs it down.

        Never bother to build light rail where upgrades to existing heavy rail work better. Sound Transit seems set against giving billions and billions to BN but is perfectly fine spending even more money building redundant light rail.

        If an express bus is faster than a projected light rail line, don’t build it. Why we can’t just have more express buses to the airport from Tacoma and skip the clunky light rail is beyond me. Same with Everett.

        TOD is not the goal of transit. Funky real estate deals around housing just drive up land prices.

        Focus on the now! Sound Transit is starting to sound like the old USSR with these silly 5 year plans that morph in 10 year plans and then never actually get built at all.

        Hire a CEO with a backbone. Dow needs to hold a presser and just announce. “No more tunnels” West Seattle and Ballard can just get bent. Take the above ground rail and be happy with it.

        Sorry, but I’m not a transit fool like other posters. Let’s start with the con artist Julie Trimm. 16 months on the job, quits for “family reasons” and takes $350,000 severance package? If you believe in transit or even spending public money wisely…. this is 100% bullshit. Bad hire.

        Who knows if Dow is going to good or not? But the hiring process was nothing but backroom bullshit. An elected official leaving office for a public sector job paying half a million a year?

        Then there’s Tacoma’s light rail to nowhere. After that failed project why would anyone trust ST?

    3. I see Dow’s name on the article only once, and not directly related to the long-term bond bill. Where do you get the idea Dow is orchestrating this? Just bercause he wants WSBLE with certain features doesn’t automatically mean he’s spearheading this legislation.

    4. If Everett and Tacoma Dome are built, Snohomish will have Link through its entire subarea and three of its city cores. Even if it’s unnecessary it will still be better for the middle and northern parts of the subarea.

      Pierce even with a full ST3 buildout will have Link only to the nearest corner of the subarea, and to none of its city cores. It will still be an ordeal to get from Link to any of Pierce’s activity centers, much less between them.

      1. I agree Mike. With Everett Link it is simply overkill. The areas are just not big enough even if the plans are relatively solid. In contrast Pierce County won’t get much out of Tacoma Dome Link.

      2. “ Even if it’s unnecessary it will still be better for the middle and northern parts of the subarea.”

        How so?

        Everett Link info says that it will be 33 minutes on Link for every trip between Everett and Lynnwood. That’s not including the additional of an extra minute is added for the optional 99/ Airpost station where two Swift lines cross.

        The 512 today is faster than this except for the very peak trips. The added delay is for the segment south of Mariner.

        Even at the height of rush hour, Everett the segment north of Mariner is only forecast to get less than 12K boardings and that’s pre pandic. The one station in the industrial zone is forecasted as 1900 daily boardings.

        https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/

        It’s obvious to me that it’s the wrong, slow technology any time station spacing exceeds 2 miles. It might be different if Everett was planning four more infill stations — but they aren’t. And the infill stations being added now require suitable track positioning. That isn’t even being talked about for Everett Link.

      3. The 512 could also be made faster – for a tiny fraction of what Everett Link would cost – by building the missing ramp connecting Ash Way Park and ride with I-5 to the north. Of course, ST will never consider this ramp because they don’t want the 512 to be faster because a faster 512 weakens the case for Everett Link.

      4. “Everett Link info says that it will be 33 minutes on Link for every trip between Everett and Lynnwood.”

        Link will run every 5-10 minutes compared to the 512’s 15 minutes at best, and won’t get caught in traffic congestion. That mitigates the longer travel time. People hate waiting more than they hate traveling a few minutes more. Link will be better for those going from Ash Way P&R to Seattle. It will serve areas the 512 doesn’t, like 99 and Paine Field.

        “Everett the segment north of Mariner is only forecast to get less than 12K boardings”

        The immediate question is the transit options/experience for people in the northern half of the subarea, not how many of them there are.

      5. The 512 could also be made faster – for a tiny fraction of what Everett Link would cost – by building the missing ramp connecting Ash Way Park and ride with I-5 to the north. Of course, ST will never consider this ramp because they don’t want the 512 to be faster because a faster 512 weakens the case for Everett Link.

        There is something to that, even if it is the other way around. They aren’t working on making the 512 faster because they just assume that at some point we will have Everett Link and it won’t matter. You could also say the same thing about HOV-3 lanes. It often becomes a cyclical argument as well. People say we can’t have HOV-3 lanes so we have to build Link. Then people ask why we don’t have HOV-3 lanes and they say it is because Link will be here soon.

      6. Everett Link info says that it will be 33 minutes on Link for every trip between Everett and Lynnwood.

        Sure, but that is not Mike’s point. At least Everett Link serves relatively important destinations (in Snohomish County). Downtown Everett and Boeing are destinations. For some riders will be able to get there in less time (e. g. Mariner to Boeing, Evergreen to Everett). OK, not a lot of combinations, but still. Same goes for Lynnwood. In the sense that Lynnwood even has destinations, Link will serve them (it will serve “Downtown Lynnwood” as well as Alderwood mall).

        In contrast, Link won’t serve what is by far the biggest destination in Pierce County: Downtown Tacoma. This is a bigger destination than the Snohomish County destinations and yet it manages to avoid it. The Tacoma Dome is one of those places you serve along the way (similar to SoDo) and yet it is the focal point of the effort. The trip pairs are almost laughable: Tacoma Dome to Fife, Portland Avenue to Federal Way. Ten miles of new track and the biggest destinations are a casino and a dome that lacks a regular client.

        With Everett they got carried away. With Tacoma they just missed the whole point.

      7. “ST will never consider this ramp because they don’t want the 512 to be faster because a faster 512 weakens the case for Everett Link.”

        They don’t want to spend a significant amount of money on a ramp that would only be used for a few years. We’re already in that situation with the Nountkaiw Terrace freeway station and the Lynnwood TC direct-accees ramps.

      8. “For some riders will be able to get there in less time (e. g. Mariner to Boeing, Evergreen to Everett)”

        There are also people living in those areas, going to Lynnwood, Nountkaiw Terrace, north Seattle, central Seattle, Sea-Tac airport, and Bellevue.

      9. “In contrast, Link won’t serve what is by far the biggest destination in Pierce County: Downtown Tacoma”
        The boundaries of what is considered Downtown Tacoma have been expanding to include the Dome District with city planning in recent years so it is serving Downtown Tacoma.

        https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/city_departments/planning_and_development_services/planning_services/current_initiatives_and_projects/downtown_tacoma_-_regional_growth_center

        It’s not part of Downtown physically right now because of the 705 separating the two areas. But I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up getting demolished in the next couple of decades for a how much of a waste of space it is in the city and low car useage to keep maintaining it. The other thing is that the city’s Downtown boundaries have changed and evolved over the decades, as has the city center as well.

        I’d also point out that Everett Link is going to have it’s Downtown Everett station be at the edge of Downtown at the Everett Amtrak Station/Transit Center. Which is Downtown Everett, yes but is still at the edge of it. So it feels a bit like grasping at straws for criticism.

        I think you just need to let go and stop worrying of it not being perfect or ideal to your transit dreams when it’ll still move a lot of people when it opens. People have been wanting a better airport connection to Tacoma than the very lousy 574 which is not that good of an airport service as someone who has used it for over a decade at this point. Lot of airport/hotel workers/passangers will have a much more frequent and reliable route than what is currently offered. If it was open today, I wouldn’t need my parents to come pick me up from the airport anymore. That’s a lot of stress taken off me and my parents if I need to go to the airport.

      10. AI: People taking the 512 to Lynnwood are not going to Lynnwood. They are transferring to the light rail to go to Seattle, and not necessarily downtown Seattle. In addition to the difference in frequency, the elimination of the transfer penalty needs to be considered, especially at hours when the 512 is less frequent, as well as the additional destinations served by Link versus the 512 if it still ran into downtown. Is it an overkill? Perhaps. But it is at least a useful overkill.

      12. ST won’t add the ramp because that’s not what the voters asked for, not out of any supposed malice towards the 512.

        In any case the long straight sections of everett link provide ample opportunity for higher speeds if ST is able to procure vehicles capable of them.

      13. The current design Siemens cars are capable of higher speeds. However, the track and station frequency make it somewhat non-useful.

        If you want an equivalent of an express bus, some of the stations will need express through tracks.

      14. Link will run every 5-10 minutes compared to the 512’s 15 minutes at best, and won’t get caught in traffic congestion

        So run the bus more often. I also doubt very much that they will run trains every five minutes up to Everett. It just doesn’t make sense given how many people will ride the train. That is another problem with this approach. Running a bus is cheaper than running a train. It only becomes cheaper to run trains when they carry more than a bus can. I don’t see that being the case with Everett Link. I just don’t see ST subsidizing service to Everett in that manner.

      15. “So run the bus more often.”

        We’ve tried and failed to convince ST and Metro to do that for eighteen years. What’s the chance we’ll succeed in the next eighteen? ST’s and Metro’s position is to wait for Link it RapidRide, even when they won’t get built for ten years and get delayed for five more.

      16. “I also doubt very much that they will run trains every five minutes up to Everett.”

        It’s 5 minutes to Mariner/128th and 10 minutes to Everett Station. The 2 Line may end up getting truncated to Lynnwood or Northgate off-peak, but that’s in none of ST’s planning scenarios, so it’s just speculation. ST could have reduced the existing Link lines to 15 minutes, but it has never done so in the whole history of Link except during covid and maintenance periods

      17. There are also people living in those areas, going to Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, north Seattle, central Seattle, Sea-Tac airport, and Bellevue.

        OK, but now you are getting to Al’s point. If you are going a long distance (say, Downtown Everett to anywhere in Seattle) then Link won’t be as fast as a bus. It only makes sense for those trips in between (like Mariner to Boeing). Everett Link actually has trips like that — the problem is more of scale then anything else. If Everett was three times as big and all the destinations were three times as large (and there were a lot more stations along the way) then it would make sense. Of course that is a completely different world than we live in. But at least Everett is trying. (Basically they are pretending very hard that they are much bigger than they actually are.)

        The boundaries of what is considered Downtown Tacoma have been expanding to include the Dome District with city planning in recent years so it is serving Downtown Tacoma.

        They can call it what they want but it still has the same problem. It is at the periphery of the downtown area. The 705 is only part of the problem. You also have I-5 as well — are they going to get rid of that as well? Are they going to bury the railroad tracks too? I mean just look at the area: https://maps.app.goo.gl/piAaQAjYYrchaDs88. It is clearly industrial. The idea that it will somehow grow to be the main part of downtown just because of a zoning change (or because you can talk an extremely long train ride to Seattle) is absurd. If anything Downtown Tacoma is likely to grow the other direction. Multicare Health Systems — by far the largest private employer in Pierce County — is located at 9th & A Street. UW Tacoma is at 19th. There is a huge swath of relatively cheap, open land in that area that could be developed. If 705 is removed that land would increase in value and of course be developed long before the area around the dome has anything substantial. Places like here, here and here. These all look pretty similar to the area around the Tacoma Dome in that they are big parking lots with nothing on them. The big difference is that they are surrounded by big buildings and old architecture that has inherit value from an office development standpoint. If they tear out the 705 it is those places that will thrive, not an area sandwiched between I-5 and a railroad yard.

        But any office growth in Tacoma is likely to be slow. The great office boom of the last century is pretty much over. What exists will continue to consolidate. It will be like malls — things become stratified. The big survive (and sometimes do really well) while satellite office parks collapse. Downtown Tacoma is big enough to survive but I doubt it will spur a major sprawling office district on the outskirts (like the Tacoma Dome).

      18. “The boundaries of what is considered Downtown Tacoma have been expanding to include the Dome District”

        When people say “downtown Tacoma” they mean all that’s within walking distance of 9th & Commerce and UW Tacoma. That’s hundreds of businesses, services, and cultural attractions, plus tens of thousands of residents. There’s no way the Dome District can ever match that. Even if it gets built out like the Spring District, that would be one pub, one golf shop, and maybe one other business. That does nothing for average people who don’t go to that pub, don’t play golf, and don’t do that other thing. In contrast, everybody goes to downtown Tacoma at least sometimes.

      19. “…it’ll still move a lot of people when it opens. People have been wanting a better airport connection to Tacoma”

        Ridership estimates, even in the rosy pre-Covid era of 2019, where pretty awful. Single car trains could handle the estimated numbers just fine.

      20. RossB, what is soon? One example. In the late 1990s, WSDOT had a HOV lane study; center access ramps to/from the north in the U District would have helped CT and Metro routes. But Link was coming. It took more than two decades.


      21. “Then people ask why we don’t have HOV-3 lanes and they say it is because Link will be here soon.”

        RossB, what is soon?

        In this case it could be decades. I was being facetious when I used the word “soon”. The point being that even if Link will be here in twenty years (and even if a fix is relatively cheap) it is often used as an argument for not fixing a problem.

        It is one of the big problems with the overly ambitious light rail plans. If the spine is supposed to end at Lynnwood to the north and Federal Way to the south (which is quite long and appropriate) then folks along the corridor immediately shift their focus. They start thinking of ways of improving the buses or Sounder. This means things like connecting Ash Way with the HOV lanes to the north. This would not be that expensive and yet make a huge difference. But with Link coming they don’t want to do that. So for a very long time people will have to live with substandard service and then when it is finally extended it won’t be that much better than what they could build now.

      22. “At least Everett Link serves relatively important destinations (in Snohomish County).”

        A quarter mile walkshed from each planned station entrance actually serves very little. Even a half mile isn’t great in serving these areas. The destinations in Snohomish are much more spread out than those in Seattle. Plus, there are high speed arterials near many stations so users will have to walk out of direction to cross high-speed multi-lane streets to reach a station. What may be 1/3 of a mile away as the crow flies may require over a half-mile of walking.

        To CT’s credit, the Swift program helps to overcome this. But I wouldn’t say that much of the areas shown on a countywide map are ultimately “served” well by Link alone.

      23. The destinations in Snohomish are much more spread out than those in Seattle

        That is not the point. I would say the biggest destinations in Snohomish County are probably Downtown Everett, Boeing and Alderwood Mall. That doesn’t mean that these are huge destinations but in the county that is as good as you get. Link serves them all. That doesn’t mean they serve them all really well. Boeing is tough to serve because it is so sprawling. The Downtown Everett station isn’t great as they are focused on the existing Everett Station (which is a bit southeast of the center). But give them credit — some of the plans are actually closer to the city center. The point is if you are going to twist my arm and say we *must* run light rail to Everett then I would probably come up with something similar to what they did. I would go with option D (from the map) and probably have a few more stations but the basic idea is about as good as you are going to get.

        In contrast Tacoma Dome Link doesn’t make any sense to me — it is basically a series of park and ride lots. Of the top destinations in the county, I think it only serves one: The Tacoma Dome. The biggest destination in the county — one that is much bigger than anything in Snohomish County as well — is Downtown Tacoma. Yet none of the options gets you close to Downtown Tacoma. Nor is this like when we first built Link and it ended in Tukwila (instead of SeaTac). There are no plans to extend it to downtown. If you twisted my arm and told me we had to build light rail to Tacoma I sure as hell wouldn’t stop at the Tacoma Dome, I would run that sucker right through downtown. Too expensive you say? Then why build it in the first place? It isn’t like this thing is cheap. It is like buying a Ferrari and putting on cheap tires. You probably shouldn’t have bought a Ferrari in the first place but if you are going to do it, do it right.

      24. Running the 512 more frequently would not eliminate the transfer penalty at Lynnwood. Especially during off peak hours. Pretty sure you’re not running the 512 every 5-10 minutes after 7 PM or on weekends. I used to deal with the 512 transfer penalty from Lynnwood to Northgate. Total game changer to have Link go all the way to Lynnwood. And the transfer situation at Northgate was actually better: shorter walk, no crosswalk signal, escalators in both directions. Now is it an overkill given the expected ridership? It is. But that still doesn’t make running more 512 busses better.

      25. When the transfer was at Northgate, northbound passengers would see the bus leaving as they walked across the plaza to the bus stop so they’d have to wait for the next one. That adds 15 minutes to travel time. My friend in north Lynnwood said that happened to her most of the time, and she complained that the 512 should be timed with Link or wait for transfers if a train has just come in. I don’t know if the transfer at Lynnwood is better. But with Link extended to Ash Way or Everett, you don’t have that transfer penalty.

      26. Given the existence of Tacoma Link, Sound Transit presumably sees the connection to downtown Tacoma from the broader network being provided by the transfer at Tacoma Dome station.

      27. Sound Transit presumably sees the connection to downtown Tacoma from the broader network being provided by the transfer at Tacoma Dome station.

        Sure, there are also buses that go that way too. But that is the point. If it doesn’t serve it directly then you aren’t adding much value. You can just run buses from Downtown Tacoma to any destination on Link. Better yet you can run express buses from Downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle but with a stop at Federal Way. The stop takes very little time (since there are HOV lanes both directions) and then becomes the best of both worlds. Riders continue to have their fast way between Downtown Tacoma and Downtown Seattle while also being able to connect to places like the airport and Rainier Valley.

        Thus the value of Tacoma Dome Link is based on the value of serving the four stations in between Federal Way Station and Downtown Tacoma — and those stations are not very good.

      28. “You can just run buses from Downtown Tacoma to any destination on Link.”

        This is where the advantage of trains come in. You’d need different buses going to different stations to keep travel times down. Link serves stations which have never had a direct bus route and probably never will. Rainier Valley never had a bus to the airport before Link; you had to backtrack to Intl Dist or SODO to transfer. All this can be done with a single train instead of several buses, and serving station pairs that will never have a bus route, all at the speed of a limited-stop or express bus. AND a train can be more frequent because it’s more efficient: you’re not running all those buses, each with a driver.

      29. Running the 512 more frequently would not eliminate the transfer penalty at Lynnwood.

        No, of course not. But the point is for a lot of riders coming from Everett and headed to Seattle the fastest option would be an express to Lynnwood followed by Link. This would be faster than Everett Link — as long as the bus (and train) are frequent. Al said it will take 33 minutes by train. If the bus doesn’t stop along the way it would take it about 20 minutes. If they built the Ash Way ramps and the 512 stopped at the same stops it does today (South Everett and Ash Way) the bus would still be about ten minutes faster than the train. That gives you ten minutes to get from the bus to the train — plus waiting. The waiting is the only thing that can really screw things up, which is why folks mentioned frequency.

        Keep in mind that some people would have to transfer anyway. For example the 512 has a stop at Hewitt & Lombard (next to the arena). That is a long walk from the station. If Link is extended to Everett Station then those riders still ride a bus — they just transfer at a different place (Everett instead of Lynnwood). Except now the train is slower. Put it another way: Imagine they keep the 512 and you boarded next to the arena. You wouldn’t transfer in Everett — you would ride the train all the way to Lynnwood. The extension doesn’t really add anything.

        By no means am I saying the tail of the 512 is great. It isn’t. I also think that the 512 should skip Ash Way until they build those ramps (I forget who suggested that). There are lots of improvements that can be made for very little money to improve express service to Lynnwood.

        But mostly I’m just pointing out that for a lot of trips an express bus (or train) is better. The main advantage of a metro is the combination of trips that aren’t very far. For example with Northgate Link you had Northgate to the U-District or Roosevelt to Capitol Hill. These trips are very common and are now very fast. But the trip from Northgate to downtown was actually slower. This is the trade-off. So for Everett and Tacoma Dome Link you have to ask yourself if the trips along the way are actually worth it. If not then we would be much better off with express buses.

  3. ““If people can’t go to [Chicago’s] subway and not be afraid of being stabbed or thrown in front of tracks or burnt … We’re going to pull your money,”

    Burnt, that’s a new one. I’ve heard of fires in the DC Metro due to deferred maintenance, but I haven’t heard of that in Chicago. The solution to deferred maintenance is to fund the maintenance, not cut funding further, but I digress. How many people have been stabbed or thrown in front of tracks in the Chicago L n the past two years? As for “being afraid” of this, that depends more on the media and people on Nextdoor scaremongering, which not something the agencies can do anything about.

  4. ST EXPRESS SURVEY: Sound Transit has a survey through April 26 to shape its 2026 operation plan. This affects what ST Express routes will do in the East Link and Federal Way restructures, and in all subareas, and Sounder and Link. This is phase 1, so it simply asks which routes you ride, what general factors are important to you, and a text box for any other input. (I forgot to check whether it includes route 566, the Auburn-Redmond route not in earlier East Link restructure proposals.)

    I entered all routes I ever ride, gave top priority to frequency, second priority to other important factors, and gave a plea for the 554. I asked for the 554’s downtown Bellevue alignment to be implemented, for all runs to be extended to the Issaquah Highlands P&R, and for the Gilman Avenue alternative.

    The Bellevue alignment complements the total transit network (alongside Metro expresses from the Highlands to Mercer Island station). The Gilman alternative gives more access to Issaquah commercial destinations. Having all runs go the Highlands is important because otherwise there will be no all-day transit between the Highlands and central Issaquah (City Hall area).

    I punted on other routes like the 512, 522, 535, 545, 550, 574, 577, 578, and 594. I’ll wait till phase 2’s proposals on those to see whether they’re OK.

    ST gave a vague statement to STB which seems to allow for the possibility that ST Express won’t be modified until after the World Cup next summer. If that’s true, the 545, 550, and 554 would remain on their current routes overlapping with the full 2 Line, and the 515 would continue. A possible reason for this would to ensure capacity and redundancy during the event (so that a Link outage wouldn’t paralyze all transit access). A consequence would be that the 554 would continue to serve Mercer Island instead of Bellevue, so there would be no all-day express between Issaquah and Bellevue. I don’t know whether ST is thinking about this, but it might be.

    1. I must admit I was confused about the ST survey.

      When a survey link says “feedback” I assume that they want a response to a proposal.

      This “feedback” is mostly demographic or describing a primary reason and frequency of travel.

      It’s asking who you are, not what do you think. To me, this is not “feedback”. It feels instead something like what some PR person created so that they can tell the Board “we got 1000 responses!” — while ignoring the effort after that.

      As surveys go, it’s a new low to me.

    2. ST gave a vague statement to STB which seems to allow for the possibility that ST Express won’t be modified until after the World Cup next summer.

      That seems odd. I get it for Federal Way Link. I think they should have a big restructure but I also think they should continue to run express buses between Seattle and Tacoma. ST also hasn’t made clear what they actually plan on doing with the ST buses after Federal Way Link. I see this as just another excuse to delay the hard decisions.

      In contrast there is a specific plan in place (for ST Express) after the full roll out of East Link. Delaying it just because of a sporting event seems rather silly. There will be six games in Seattle. I do expect plenty of East Side fans but it would make more sense to just run the occasional express bus right to the game (from someplace like Eastgate). Otherwise you are running buses all day just to accommodate an evening event. At a minimum you would have to change the schedules. For example the 554 is fairly peak oriented, with buses every fifteen minutes or so to Seattle in the morning and every half hour in the evening. But even the routing doesn’t make that much sense. The bus would drop people off not that far from the stadium but then it spends much of its time going up to the north end of downtown. In contrast express buses from Issaquah/Eastgate to the stadium itself could prove to be popular as an alternative to the crowds and walk to/from the CID.

      1. At the last ST Rider Experience and Operations Committee, they even received a presentation initiating Workd Cup transit needs. This is the presentation:

        https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Presentation%20-%202025%20Club%20World%20Cup%20and%202026%20World%20Cup%20Update%20-%2004-03-25.pdf

        So it’s already clear that ST will have a tailored action plan for the different events. It should have nothing to do with making general service adjustments.

        So I agree that the reference is not only vague, but rather odd or maybe even misdirected.

    3. Thank you, Mike, for the heads-up about the survey. I would never have known about it because ST does a terrible job at marketing stuff like this. I just put in my two cents about

      1) saving the 590’s
      2) maintaining 230a start-times for south-county service, whether it be Link or keeping early trips of the 574
      3) earlier Link trips that start north of Stadium at 400a

    4. I responded around Sounder, 1 line, 560, 594,590 and 574. I put frequency foremost as well. That and just say no to parking garages.

      There was a text box where you could talk about your priorities, though it depends on the qualitative skills to mine that for useful info. I told them to cancel TDLE, and plow that money into to frequency, span and track upgrades on ST express and Sounder.

    5. “This “feedback” is mostly demographic or describing a primary reason and frequency of travel. ”

      This is how many restructures start, both ST and Metro. The first phase is about generating feedback on current ridership and general factors. The second phase is a concrete proposal. All surveys have demographic questions. It’s partly to prove the agency is considering underrepresented communities, and to highlight areas for specific outreach in later phases. (This can include open houses at community centers, events, or languages related to those communities.)

      1. Demographic info provides the ability to generate crosstabs for responses. But when the questions are so vague that the crosstabs would not further the discussion at all.

        Is it really more informative to find out that retirees use ST less often, or use it less often to get to work?

        Keep in mind that the survey doesn’t even ask for zip codes to geolocate the responses. The responses could be overly weighted to parts of the region where local influencers could bias the results.

    6. The 545 is the only ST Express route I regularly ride. It should definitely end when the 2 goes to Seattle. Honestly, 542 + Link is already competitive with the 545, and if you increased the 542 to 15-minute frequency, you could end the 545 today.

      I have my doubts whether the World Cup is actually going to happen here. A lot of people are avoiding travel to the US these days. But in any case, it seems like a terrible reason to keep running redundant bus routes.

    7. I looked at the survey, but didn’t bother to submit anything. It didn’t even ask for feedback about any proposed changes to bus routes, just what buses do you ride, which service attributes do you find important, and, of course, demographics.

      The demographic questions were, in fact, more than half the survey, but I don’t see why it matters. Shouldn’t all survey responses be weighted equally, regardless of ethnicity or skin color?

      Even the questions about “do you value XXX”, I don’t think will be very useful. Of course everyone will say that they’re all important, since the participant isn’t even asked to rank anything.

      Open ended questions are inherently not very useful, as ST staff does not have the time to read them, so they likely get summarily discarded.

  5. Anyone have an update on the escalators at UW light rail station that have been down for months? At first it was just one, but now it’s two that are side-by-side. I get it, things break, but ST could at least put up some signs directing passengers to the working escalators — especially for multi-month outages. Every day, I see passengers enter the mezzanine and continue straight to the broken escalators, only to get confused and turn around, looking for where to go. I’ve mentioned this to ST staff at the station, but nothing has changed.

    2. Which escalators are they? I rarely use UW station nowadays, but during U-Link I transferred there five days a week, and almost every day there was at least one escalator or elevator not working.

      Did ST do its UW station escalator upgrade that it was going to do?

      1. Both long “north” escalators between the first mezzanine and second mezzanine are the ones that have been out of service.

        I’m not sure that upgrade has happened – maybe that is what this is? Neither seems to have been disassembled at this point – just blocked off.

      2. The upgrade merely requires closing the escalator for a few days so that workers can install the new one. ST is currently replacing treads at Westlake station, and you can see the workers there and the new/old treads stacked up on the side. I don’t know what’s involved in replacing the motor and conveyor infrastructure, but it wouldn’t shut it down for several months with nobody working on it.

        When escalators have been shut down for several months (as happened at Westlake and University Street in the 2010s and 2020s), it’s because it doesn’t have money to repair them until a grant comes in. That happened when Metro was running the DSTT. ST has more resources. And it could delay Link projects to generate plenty of money for repairs.

  6. RE Walk Score:

    I think that the “walk score” bias is real. It was created to supplement information about making a home purchase or valuing a home’s location — and not some brilliant analytical tool grading urban policy. Because more upscale areas attract more restaurants and retail, they will score higher.

    It also has a “what’s there today” bias too. It takes time for commercial districts to evolve. Consider how the Judkins Park area has yet to have robust ground-floor retail yet that could be different in a few years.

    1. I just looked up the three wealthiest and three poorest zip code in King County (by income), and their Walk Scores. Here they are. I’ll include the Walk Scores next to their names. The top three wealthiest zip codes are Sammamish (11), Medina (14), and another part of Sammamish (10). The bottom three poorest zip codes are Downtown Seattle (97), Downtown Renton (53), and Federal Way (43).

      1. Surprised that downtown Seattle is one of the top 3 poorest neighborhoods somehow

      2. I assume Sam picked Zip code 98104 for downtown, which includes the population of the King County Jail.

      3. Surprised that downtown Seattle is one of the top 3 poorest neighborhoods somehow.

        Yeah, that seems like a statistical anomaly. It looks like Nathan may have figured it out.

      4. My comment was above board. I did a search for household income by city in King County, the site in the link below came up, and I chose the top three, and the bottom three zip codes. And then I looked up their Walk Scores. I wanted to check to see if the wealthier the area, the higher the Walk Score. Going by that website, using incomes and zip codes, the wealthier the area, the lower the Walk Score.

        Granted, on different websites, using different metrics, King County towns and cities will be in different positions on the list.

        https://datacommons.stanford.edu/ranking/Median_Income_Household/CensusZipCodeTabulationArea/geoId/53033?h=zip%2F98008&unit=%24

      5. Somehow I don’t find looking at the top or bottom three zip codes in King County that relevant.

        Maybe the top three zip codes within Seattle only would be a more reasonable comparison.

        The observation is comparing neighborhoods of more similar densities.

      7. It’s just another example of why it’s important to understand the exact extents of geospatial data. Summary geostatistics often obscure important geographic details.

      8. Also, there’s a reason the “White Score” article is in the Opinion section.

      9. The only way Downtown Seattle is poorest (and the CID is right up there too), is the number of very low income people in subsidized apartments, jail residents, and homeless people if they’re counted. Average market-rate rents downtown are NOT low; they’re probably above $2000. I wish they were low so that I could get a cheap market-rate apartment downtown.

      10. Al, sorry, that was rude of me saying you’d still be wrong. I should have said I believe it would still be the case in the City of Seattle. Wealthier areas would still have lower Walk Scores than poorer areas in Seattle. However, the Walk Score gap between the richest and poorest wouldn’t be as large as it is when looking at King County as a whole.

      11. “Wealthier areas would still have lower Walk Scores than poorer areas in Seattle”

        Wealthy areas have both the highest and lowest walk scores. Capitol Hill has a high walk score. Broadmoor and the Lake Washington shore have a low walk score. Equity areas like Delridge or Broadview are in between. Downtown would be wealthy if you didn’t count the concentration of relief housing and homeless, which arguably skew the results. Zip codes cover large and arbitrary areas, combining both rich and poor neighborhoods together, and their boundaries go through the middle of neighborhoods, so they’re not a fully reliable indicator.

      12. Mike, all you did was mention some upscale and non-upscale neighborhoods that have low and high Walk Scores. Also, you are responding to a claim nobody made. Nobody said non-upscale neighborhoods never have low Walk Scores, and nobody said upscale neighborhoods never have high Walk Scores. What is being said is, in general, upscale neighborhoods in Seattle tend to have lower Walk Scores than non-upscale neighborhoods. But, feel free to believe whatever you want.

      13. Sam, you’ll need to look at more than a few zip codes at each end of the wealth spectrum to define that trend.

      14. Nathan, you are correct. If I were writing a post or article or dissertation on the subject, I would have done more. But, I’m not going to do in-depth research for a comment. I just wanted to see for myself if the claim that upscale areas in Seattle have higher Walk Scores, so I did a very rudimentary search. Keep in mind, even though the search was very rudimentary, it was still more than what most other commenters did to arrive at an opinion on Walk Scores and wealth. I’m done with this subject.

      15. “upscale neighborhoods in Seattle tend to have lower Walk Scores than non-upscale neighborhoods”

        That flies in the face of reality. Downtown Bellevue has the highest walkscore in the Eastside AND the highest housing prices per square foot. Medina is one of the wealthiest areas and has a low walk score. But the Medinas are exceptions because few people total live in them (they’re so low density only a few people can fit in them). In general, areas with a higher walk score are well off, because a high walk score is an indicator of amenities and convenience that people will pay for.

        In the mid 20th century there was a paradox were redlining and white flight depopulated the most walkable neighborhoods near downtowns and their wealth fell. That reversed in the 1990s and 21st century, and those neighborhoods returned to a typical high walkability/high wealth/high cost pattern.

        What makes them high wealth concentrations is (A) inequality — the difference between the top 25% and bottom 25% is wide, so people in them have a lot more dollars rather than just a few more dollars, and (B) the scarcity of walkable neighborhoods — only 20% of the population can live in them, so the wealthiest 20% get to, except those who prefer a waterfront mansion or far-out exurban house. The stereotype says most people want a large house in a low-density residential-only neighborhood, but when people vote with their feet you see that a lot of them want closer-in, more walkable, more transit-rich neighborhoods. They get the choice to live there, while lower-income people don’t get a choice, they have to live in less convenient areas.

      16. “Wealthier areas would still have lower Walk Scores than poorer areas in Seattle”

        There is a correlation but you are ignoring why it exists. You have to consider historical development patterns as well as zoning. Just to state the obvious here, big houses are worth more than small houses. Thus a neighborhood with big houses is bound to be wealthier than a neighborhood of small houses*. The same goes for condos. A house is worth more than a condo*. Thus a neighborhood of houses will be wealthier than a neighborhood of condos*.

        During a period of high demand, low density housing gets replaced by high density housing. Large lots get subdivided. Houses get replaced by apartments or condos. Thus wealth is spread out more. Instead of one family owning a house on a large lot you have five families with small houses on small lots or two dozen families each living in an apartment or condo. But zoning can prevent this. Zoning can create stratification by preventing the spread of housing wealth.

        There is another issue in Seattle: views. Views are very valuable and any housing with views (house, condo, apartment) is more valuable with a view.

        OK, now look at some of the housing costs in Seattle. Start by looking at the most expensive condos in Seattle. For example, get on Redfin and look at the condos that are worth more than a million dollars. They are almost all in buildings with a high Walk Score.

        Now look at expensive houses. Start with a million dollars. They are scattered around pretty much everywhere — even in places traditionally considered low income. Clearly there is a major housing shortage. More about that later.

        Go up to 2 million and you can find a pattern. There are quite a few along the east side of Seattle (Lescii, Madrona, etc.). There are also quite a few in north Capitol Hill and Queen Anne. There is an obvious reason for this: This is where the big houses are. If you look outside Seattle to the East Side you can see a lot of very expensive houses pretty much everywhere. Again, this is because they built (and are still building) a lot of very big houses (on big lots). These are also places where demand for housing is very high but they don’t allow apartments or condos.

        So if you look at similar housing types you can see that areas with a high Walk Score are more attractive. Realtors aren’t stupid. They use whatever tool they can find to sell (or rent) a place. They know that a high Walk Score means a place is more valuable*.

        Meanwhile, you have neighborhoods consisting of very large houses on very large lots (often with views) — and not much else. By law you can’t build anything else. Thus you don’t have people in condos, apartments or even small houses pushing down the average wealth in the neighborhood. This is just an example of how zoning has stratified wealth.

        This situation has always existed to a certain extent but it has gotten much worse. Demand for housing increased over time (which explains why there are so many houses worth more than a million).

        The point being that if those very expensive neighborhoods had a high Walk Score on top of everything then prices would likely go up. That would be like having your cake and eating it to. A million dollar view with a huge house *and* being walking distance so shops, cafes and the like? That is damn attractive.

        *all other things being equal.

  7. The other day, the comment section said it saw a B Line bus signed up to Downtown Redmond Station. I can confirm that every Redmond-bound B Line bus is signed up “DWTN REDMOND STA.” It’s still only going as far as the Redmond Transit Center.

  8. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/magazine/suburban-sprawl-texas.html?rsrc=flt&smid=url-share

    The case for sprawl.

    They ignore the short term expense of infrastructure: transit, roads, schools, libraries, fire, police, water, sewer, electric, town-centers, services. They mostly ignore the medium and long-term costs of maintenance. But if the regs built in both the short-term and long-term costs explicitly, it is a more reasonable argument. But then sprawl development would no longer be substantially cheaper than infill. Maybe.

    But maybe not. Greenfield development is still likely cheaper than infill, just based on the cost of land. Maybe we should build and S-line train from West Seattle, along 518 and diving down into all that cheap land and greenfield opportunities in the Kent Valley, with transfers to the 1 line and the Sounder. There is a remarkable amount of farm land down there. And warehouses that could cheaply be converted to dense housing. Build a train where large-scale development is still cheaply possible to build. Extract zoning concessions and attract substantial density around stations.

    Definitely not conventional YIMBY wisdom, and it wouldn’t be a replacement for infill. But maybe an essential supplement. We are in a massive housing crisis that is unlikely to abate any time soon, and crises mean you often need to stop doing what you have been doing that hasn’t been working.

    Demographic trends suggest we might hit peak human in 30 years. But current humans need roofs, and the Puget Sound region is likely only to get more popular, even if national population levels off. And the devastation that homelessness and unaffordable housing has wrought is an immediate 5 alarm fire. Infill alone is just too expensive, and just takes way too long.

    Time to consider alternatives.

    1. > But if the regs built in both the short-term and long-term costs explicitly

      Then the development costs would probably be fairly close to urban “grey field” construction.

    2. It’s not as if adding capacity to already overtaxed urban infrastructure is particularly cheap either. It’s likely more expensive to upgrade urban water and sewer than to install new systems, given how much you have to rip up to replace it.

    3. “greenfield opportunities in the Kent Valley”

      What greenfield? The green patch between Kent and Auburn is a protected agricultural area. Orillia Road and S 212th Street in west Kent is a protected wetland. A road went in in the 2010s for a new development at the edge, so that tract is no longer greenfield. If you go east on Kent-Kangley Road, you find developments that went up in the 2000s, so they’re no longer greenfield. Last I saw there were still a few farm-sized lots on 112th in northeast Kent, but a half dozen lots isn’t enough to make a difference overall. The greenfield, such as it exists, is in Black Diamond, Enumclaw, and Pierce County.

      1. Why is it a protected agricultural area? Maybe it shouldn’t be. We aren’t having a farming crisis. We are having a housing crisis. Perhaps farms aren’t an appropriate land-use in the middle of a metro area trying, and failing to build enough housing to put over the heads of its residents. And that crisis is only growing more acute.

      2. Look, that area identified as agricultural land is almost as big as downtown Seattle. We could build vast amounts of housing and services there, essentially solving the housing crisis with a simple change in land use and some tax-breaks to developers to make sure they build affordable, dense housing with the appropriate infrastructure to support it.

        Maybe we treat a crisis like a crisis, and stop wringing our hands and paying lip-service, while dedicating resources that are an order of magnitude too small to actually solve the problem.

Comments are closed.