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

Local Transit News:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

177 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: ST Merch”

  1. Issaquah actually wants KILE to move in? Who knew?

    So far as the I-5 Bridge Replacement Project, I do not see how it can be afforded within the budgeted contributions of the various stakeholders. Steel just went up a minimum of 10%, and concrete will likely rise as well, since it is not all domestically produced.

    The estimated cost has already risen from an originally forecast range of $4-5,5 billion to $5.75-7 billion even as it has shrunk (a good thing) before any tariff costs. However, the contributions from each state, the FHWA, and FTA have not similarly increased. Therefore the amount to be raised from tolls has roughly doubled, but like any tax on a “useful good” tolls on transportation across the river have a “Laffer Curve” with a rate which produces the greatest total revenue.

    Of course, nobody really knows what the shape and particularly the maximum revenue point is, but there must be a point beyond which total tolling revenues will no longer rise. I believe it will be found to be lower than what is required to complete tge bridge.

    By this reference to the hoary Laffer Curve, I’m not implying that the Federal income tax rate is anywhere near the maximum total revenue rate, just saying that tolls can’t be $10 in constant money without kneecapping Clark County’s economy. If they have to double to pay for the bridge within the bonding horizon, they will reach that level and people will stop crossing the river for work. The State will have to “rescue” the bonds.

    The better choice would be to extend two or even all of the Vine lines to a new MAX terminal on Hayden Island using a pair of enforced HOV 3+ lanes which would include a “flyover” from the southbound bus-on-shoulder lane so that CTran express buses could benefit from it as well during the morning commute.

    Afternoon commutes don’t need anything similar because the combination of three NB lanes on I-5, one lane to SR-14 and one lane to the two downtown off-ramps accommodates all the traffic that the planned four northbound lanes will provide. The expresses can run in a new northbound left-hand bus-on-shoulder lane during the peaks.

    1. I wonder if they could just replace the older of the 2 bridges for now (the northbound one opened in 1917) with a feasible funding plan, and just hold off on phase 2 to replace the other parts in a couple decades?

  2. Did I just miss it, or did ST not actually tell us where STShop actually is? Or is it online only? Very unclear.

    And “STShop” is already a registered trademark of a different company. How did ST get around that?

      1. My #1 pick would be Link Delay Bingo. Is it mechanical issue? Track blockage? Signal issue? Collect them all!

    3. Where’s the STB merch? Then you could finally pay Sam for his comprehensive reporting.

  3. Has anyone tried to renew their drivers license lately? I tried to renew online when I got the notice from DOL, but DOL says I’m ineligible without providing any explanation why (it’s a Real ID). I tried to make an appointment to renew, but the first date available was almost 2 months after my license expiration date. Now when I look, DOL shows “no availability” for appointments at all locations. There is a phone number listed that says it may be possible to renew with a phone call, but that option just says that the DOL is very busy and then clicks off. Trying to go to a DOL location for information is also impossible. The Tukwila location was a mob scene with about 100 people waiting to be served by 1 DOL clerk. Fortunately, I have a passport if I need to fly, but DOL is a real mess right now.

    1. I’ve heard wait times are extreme because of the impending RealID requirement for flying. I can’t drive so I ended up just getting a passport card when I had to renew my passport a few months ago.

    2. You can’t get a RealID online; you need to go in person because they need to verify your documents.

      Unfortunately the interface for making appointments is bad. When I got mine earlier this year, you could just show up without an appointment and wait in the standby line, but that was a very long line.

    3. I’m in the same situation (and my wife was last year). You can only renew a Real ID online once; after that, you have to renew in person. I’ve luckily got a few months.

      1. Seems like a great reason not to bother getting a Real ID – bringing one’s passport along to the airport sounds like considerably less hassle than having to visit a DOL office!

        I guess I’ll keep going with my apparently-just-a-simulated ID as long as I can get away with it. Somehow I don’t think this was the intended outcome…

    4. Try going into a DOL office, I went a few years ago (granted well before this RealID push) to the Queen Anne DOL office but it was one of the easiest and fastest interfaces with a customer facing entity.

    5. Update: I was in Whatcom County this week and I stopped at the DOL near Bellis Fair. The wait time was 90 minutes. The friendly clerk who processed my renewal mentioned that they had been seeing a lot of people from the Seattle area lately.

      Also, the Canadian boycott of the USA is real. Bellingham was almost completely empty of cars with BC plates and the Bellis Fair mall was dead as a doornail.

  4. What can be done to mitgate I-90 and its exit’s impact on the planned Issaquah urban center? It’s right in the center of it, meaning people will have to cross it to get from one half to the other. I’m not talking about mobility access (gondola), but about the visual and physical impacts on the neighborhood. Could it be lidded?

    1. Or, how about a large pedestrian bridge? Like what is next to Redmond Technology Station. It could be a partnership between Costco, the City of Issaquah, and Sound Transit.

    2. I find it rather obvious that the Downtown Redmond outcome occurred because there were two end stations built near each other rather than one. Having just one station that is supposed to accommodate everything is to me a setup for planning frustration! One station simply cannot accommodate everything from end station parking structures to TOD to bus transfers to good walking and drop-off access and do it well.

      It’s a conceptual problem with every ST3 Link end station except West Seattle. Somehow, ST2 planners did it better with Redmond but the strategy was lost in planning ST3.

      Even with two stations, the best sites and station layouts will still be challenging. There are wetlands issues with Issaquah Creek, Tibbetts Creek and nearby Lake Sammamish that also must be considered. The I-90 interchanges take lots of room. The current transit center isn’t convenient to walkable destinations and loses walkable land to a park and to a wide SR 900. With so many considerations, I can’t say there is an obvious place to put stations.

      The designated growth center area adds another twist. Its eastern edge is Issaquah Creek and the area that it covers is mostly in I-90 or SR 900 right of way, already developed or in wetlands. To me, the designated growth center area is very hard to expand into a walkable TOD because of so many constraints.

      It will be interesting to see if or when Issaquah stakeholders ultimately pursue a two-station strategy or try to make a one station situation handed to them work.

      1. Al S.

        The downtown boosters in Tacoma had the problem of never wanting to tear anything down or change anything major for Sound Transit. You gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.

        The whole Tacoma Dome Station is more of a political manifestation than anything else. That’s Sound Transit’s problem system wide… too many “stakeholders” who have ideas on everything they don’t want… and zero vision for the best path forward.

        I won’t blame all on Sound Transit because the Tacoma Dome has been a focus group driven failure from the very start. This is what the Tacoma Dome should have been. https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/renewed-effort-for-andy-warhol-flower-design-on-tacoma-dome/281-193ddb0d-4e15-4cc0-ac02-423ea64b1940?fbclid=IwY2xjawJs2fNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHvOpaKlX1ei0KfT7-4ZZ3KT3sAKG3UVjBndDzflnTyoS2f3uFld2lK1jTKFp_aem_sVKzmhmR6Atv3c9K5r4z4g

        If you believe ST needed to “take the extra step” in Redmond, you’re mostly likely right.

      2. One station simply cannot accommodate everything from end station parking structures to TOD to bus transfers to good walking and drop-off access and do it well.

        No, of course not. I agree. But I don’t think they think that is possible either. They just make various compromises along the way.

        If there is a theme with ST it is to focus on distance not stations. To save money they often build in the freeway envelope. This greatly hampers the ability to serve a neighborhood or even build a new one (via TOD). There aren’t many stations so of course most of those in the suburbs have park and ride lots. Bus connections are essential and for the biggest issue is not station location but lack of them.

        Marymoor is really just a typical Link Station. It has a big parking lot and hope for TOD. If it was the only station around it would serve the various buses in the area. It just so happened that at the end of East Link there is an actual neighborhood nearby — a place worth visiting. But more importantly this is meant as the actual, long term terminus. It is not in the middle of some mythical “spine”. Thus deviating from the freeway is OK.

        That is not the case with most of the terminal stations. Northgate was meant as a temporary terminus and the long term plan was to run up the freeway envelope so it ended there. Same goes for Lynnwood Link. If Lynnwood was meant as the final destination then I could easily see the train taking a hard left and going to Edmonds College (an actual destination). Even if that proved to be too difficult it could at least go over to SR-99, thus improving the bus connections while serving areas that stand a chance of being developed. Same thing goes for Federal Way. Federal Way Station has the essential connection to express buses (that ST may try and make obsolete someday). It will have a big parking garage as well. There is some TOD potential there but again that is hurt by the freeway. One station close to the freeway (with a parking garage and an excellent connection to the express buses) and another station at 320th & SR-99 (connecting to other buses in an area they hope to develop) would be much better than what they built. But then it would cost more to head towards the Tacoma Dome.

        Even in the case of Tacoma it has the same problem. But this has more to do with the silly long-term plans to prioritize a mall over downtown. But it still fits the same model. Tacoma Dome for the giant parking garage with a couple stations downtown. Everett has a similar problem, although it is less tied in with the freeway. They want to serve the regional train station as well as downtown and that is tough to do with one station. There should be two if not three.

        So while I agree with you, I think this just goes back to the overall approach that ST takes when it comes to building Link. Even the focus on the spine is coached in such wording. No one is saying “It is essential that we serve Downtown Tacoma”, they are saying “We must complete the spine”. The assumption is that it really doesn’t matter where in Tacoma (or Everett) it ends, as long as it goes from Everett to Tacoma. Thus you have a focus on lines, not stations. To be fair, adding the various stations would cost more money. But in that case you are usually better off just not going that far. The inability to focus on quality over quantity is one of the biggest failing with Link planning.

      3. The current plan indicates a potential infill station along I-90 in Lakemont. Given the lack of development around that area, Lakemont should serve as the P&R station so Issaquah can build up more around its station.

      4. @ Michael Smith:

        I agree that the Lakemont Station site would be the better large parking structure site for the corridor in a regional systems context. Since ST plans Line 4 in the median there anyway, it could be the big garage station in focus with a median platform — and free up the other stations in the corridor be designed for walkability. (For example, 4 Line could jog off the freeway to better serve Bellevue College.) The interchange volumes are lower than in Issaquah too so the added traffic is less problematic. Systemically it’s a great concept!

        However, I think that building a parking garage near there (especially a large one several stories tall) will be controversial to NIMBY neighbors. Maybe the garage could straddle the freeway? Maybe it could have direct ramps from the freeway? Maybe it could be closer to the zoo? I think that satisfying inevitable neighbor NIMBY’s would be the toughest part about the concept.

      5. I lived within a short walk of the Lakemont station, and I am a big booster of Issaquah Link & Issaquah in general in these here comment threads. The Lakemont station should be skipped. If Issaquah is going to have multiple stations, they should be within the urban center to maximize the station walkshed.

      6. > The Lakemont station should be skipped. If Issaquah is going to have multiple stations, they should be within the urban center to maximize the station walkshed.

        Fyi the cost of a lakemont station is relatively cheap if one is already building tracks through the freeway median. Issaquah second station would be expensive because of some flyover needed to reach it if not using at grade

    3. The best outcome is for Issaquah Link to evolve into Issaquah Stride. I am really hoping that after the two 405 Stride lines operate, eastside political leaders will realize, “Hey, this is pretty good, and at a fraction of the cost of Link we can deliver projects decades earlier.” I90 running through the middle of the growth center needs to be leverages as an asset, not a barrier.

      If there is an I90 Stride Line, it should have the following stations
      – Factoria. New station
      – Eastgate. Use existing freeway station; negligible capital investment.
      – Lakemont. Low priority, but partner with WSDOT to rebuild the interchange for HOV access. Will feel a lot like the Renton 44th Stride station, with some midrise multifamily housing but generally low ridership.
      – Central Issaquah. The station should be at 10th street (which doesn’t yet exist; essentially where Gilman rubs up against I90) to serve the Costco HQ and the retail superblocks that are already zoned for midrise. It should NOT be at 17th, where the interchange destroys most of the
      Ideally, there are up to 4 freeway stations in the valley, options include
      — At 19th NW (for access to the state park and the multifamily along Newport Way),
      — 4th NW (existing I90 ped crossing at ELS Trail) or Front street (interchange is to be rebuild as a DDI)
      — 3rd NE (best access to Olde Towne without leaving the freeway). Each Stride station should have access to both sides of I90, creating new pedestrian crossings and reducing the barrier of I90.

      – Issaquah Highlands. This should be the terminus. Given this is Stride and not Link, it is OK if the bus operates in mixed traffic in the Highlands (a new HOV ramp to access Highland Way will be a worthwhile capital investment ). The existing Highlands P&R is sufficient to serve as the P&R terminus, so no need to add new parking.

      1. This idea would make a good post, with maps showing where the Stride stations would be, etc.

      3. I honestly think the current route of the 554 (from Eastgate eastward) is fine, it just needs local stops on Gilman. I think more frequency on that bus is better use of money than big construction projects.

        One issue that is kind of annoying is that the 554 doesn’t connect to STRIDE very well, so you have to detour all the way to downtown Bellevue to go from Issaquah to Renton (you could switch to the 240 at Eastgate, but that’s even slower). But, I don’t think there’s a solution to that that can be achieved at reasonable cost.

      4. I agree 554 + 21X is fine for now. ST could even invest in a Factoria station in the short-ish term and provide service with STX & KCM routes. Long term I think Issaquah will growth enough to merit more reliable & higher capacity transit; the 554 grinds through traffic during rush hour, in particular going through Olde Town, and the 219 was crush loaded pre-COVID (with 1/3 of Highlands still to be built out). The beauty of Stride is that the project can deliver in phases, with each capital investment improving local/express bus service until the route is strong enough to be rebranded to Stride.

        ST could contribute to WSDOT’s 405/90 HOV interchange project, which would be big dollars but probably still cheaper than an elevated Link line between Factoria and East Link. With an HOV-HOV connection between 405 & 90, the 554 serves Bellevue TC directly.

      5. The main value of Issaquah Link is the connection between Eastgate/Bellevue College and Downtown Bellevue. Everything else can be done easily with buses. This would be better for a lot of riders because it would have more stops. South Kirkland Park and Ride is not a significant destination. Neither is the Issaquah Station. Even if they were they are only two stops. The likelihood that tens of thousands of riders will walk to those stations is quite low. Everyone has to arrive via bus and the bus might as well keep going to Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue (saving them a transfer).

        The crux is the connection between Eastgate and Downtown Bellevue. You can’t do it via the HOV lanes. ST should work with SDOT in building ramps connecting the I-90 and 405 HOV lanes (Issaquah to Bellevue and vice-versa). Then the buses can do an excellent job of connecting these areas. It wouldn’t be cheap but it would be a small fraction of the cost of light rail and more useful in a lot of ways.

        At that point it is fairly simple to run a bus from Issaquah to Kirkland (stopping at Downtown Bellevue along the way). It would make several stops in both Kirkland and Issaquah. But once it got to the freeway it would run express, stopping only at the Eastgate freeway station and Downtown Bellevue. Issaquah would continue to run express buses to Mercer Island that operated in the same fashion (making a few stops in Issaquah but once it gets on the freeway it would only stop at Eastgate and Mercer Island). Riders could transfer between the two in Eastgate (if they don’t serve the same areas in Issaquah). I could also see some of the local buses running through Bellevue College to continue and run express to Downtown Bellevue or express to Mercer Island. It is pretty easy to see a good network providing good service along the I-90 corridor.

        It is not clear what the best approach for Kirkland is. The City of Kirkland wanted BRT on the Cross Kirkland Corridor but ST rejected that. So they ended up with a train station at the south end of town. They could just accept that model although my guess is they would want to rethink it. I could see a bus starting in Juanita, then going to Downtown Kirkland before heading east on Central Way/85th to get to the new HOV interchange. At that point it would run express to Downtown Bellevue. I also think that Totem Lake really could use an all-day, 15-minute express to the UW (stopping only at the freeway stations). This is right up ST’s alley. That isn’t related to this project but if they shifted the money they could easily pay for it.

        From a capital standpoint then, you are really only looking at those ramps connecting the HOV lanes from I-90 to 405. Do that, run a few buses and you have a much better system.

      6. One issue that is kind of annoying is that the 554 doesn’t connect to STRIDE very well, so you have to detour all the way to downtown Bellevue to go from Issaquah to Renton (you could switch to the 240 at Eastgate, but that’s even slower).

        The 240 is quite slow from the main part of Renton but if you are in north Renton it is an option to get you to Eastgate (and from there you would have buses heading to Issaquah). If the buses are running express then backtracking to Downtown Bellevue doesn’t sound terrible, either. It is about a three minute drive to drive on 405 between I-90 and NE 6th Street. Figure another minute to get from the ramp to the transit center. So that means driving that extra four minutes back and fourth. (It is worth noting that Issaquah Link has the same backtracking.) A mythical 405/I-90 transit center would thus save riders about eight minutes. This is significant but not that bad considering it is otherwise an express. You might be able to build a freeway station north of I-90 on 405 (for these reverse direction transfers) but it wouldn’t be trivial because of the difference in altitude between northbound and southbound. There is also little to connect to. The best option might be to build a freeway station where the truck is here. That would mean buses would do a minimal amount of backtracking. From there you could have a pedestrian bridge to 118th where they could add a park and ride lot. That would also give the folks in those apartments/condos some transit. But realistically I don’t see any of that happening.

        If there really were a lot of riders doing that trip then it would make sense to run an express from Renton to Eastgate (and the college). It could run farther, of course, to get more riders. For example the 105 has always been a borderline bus in terms of ridership. With a little more money, Metro would run it every fifteen minutes. But since it doesn’t take long to run it, I could see it being extended up to Eastgate. That would connect Renton Technical College with Bellevue College. It would also stop at the freeway station on 44th. That would mean that riders on the Stride Line (from Burien, Tukwila and Renton) could easily transfer to that bus to get to Bellevue College (with no backtracking at all). That is one of the big advantages of freeway stations. They allow you to build a network of overlapping routes with simple transfers to regional destinations.

      7. How useful is the 111 express to eastern Renton from South Bellevue? I’ve always wondered if there are enough destinations or density or transfers there to justify an all-day express. Since it will be an option from the (presumed) future 554, we should look at its potential.

      8. It was put in there for equity reasons. Census data says there’s BIPOC people along the route, so it’s entitled to more frequent bus service than can be justified by its ridership.

        That said, the 111 will save its riders a lot of time. Without it, a trip to Seattle would require a slow bus to Renton, followed by the 101, to reach Seattle. Likely over an hour to go downtown, more to go further. With the 111, downtown is maybe 20 minutes on the bus, followed by 10 minutes on Link. It’s a huge difference.

      9. I don’t think Kirkland gets much value out of another express bus to Bellevue. Most people would be better served transferring to Stride or staying on the K line.

        The Kirkland end of Line 4 doesn’t make much sense; it doesn’t go deep enough into Kirkland to get any riders. There aren’t many people that would drive on slow local roads to park at a P+R to take a train to destinations that are very well served by freeways. Sound Transit already knows that, the ridership estimates for South Kirkland are pitiful:
        https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/

        If Kirkland could reinvest its funds, I would suggest some kind of all-day express service to Seattle. Kirkland-Seattle via transit is an absolute slog, especially when you start anywhere north of downtown Kirkland. Perhaps something like an all-day version of the 256: https://cdn.kingcounty.gov/-/media/king-county/depts/metro/documents/projects/east-link-connections/routes/256.pdf

        That could truncate at Totem Lake or the 405/522 Stride stop. Potentially every other bus could get sent to Woodinville.

      10. The 111 peak express already exits. The restructure makes it all-day. What I don’t know is what is there:. The map shows Renton Technical College. Is everything else just apartments and houses? Is there retail, and is it just supermarket plazas? Is it all multifamily, or are a substantial number of blocks single-family?

      11. “The Kirkland end of Line 4 doesn’t make much sense; it doesn’t go deep enough into Kirkland to get any riders. ”

        The original intention was to continue to downtown Kirkland and maybe Totem Lake. But there was a three-way activist split: ST wanted Link in the Kirkland rail/trail corridor; the City of Kirkland wanted BRT there; and Save Our Trail wanted nothing. ST didn’t want to get into a protracted dispute like south Bellevue/Surrey Downs, so it punted on what to do north of South Kirkand P&R. The Stride 2 decision was made at the same time, so that gives Kirkland some high-capacity transit even if Link terminates at the Bellevue-Kirkland border.

      12. I think UW is fine with a train to downtown every 5 minutes and an HOV exit ramp off 520. The problem with the 255 is the long slog through Kirkland for people getting on at Juanita and Totem Lake. An express bus might help, but would be expensive to operate and not get that many riders. Totem Lake will also have the option to take STRIDE to the 2 line in Bellevue, and reach downtown Seattle that way.

        I think one could make a case that the money would be better spend just running the 255 more often. In particular, the 30 minute frequency after 7:30 PM is really poor, and needs improvement.

        Alternatively, if you want to spend money on capital improvements, find a way to serve south Kirkland park and ride without detouring buses. For instance, what is the reason why the 255 can’t just stop on 108th adjacent to the park and ride? If the issue is a missing crosswalk, or the road being too steep, that seems like something money can solve. At an absolute minimum, the stop sign for buses coming out of the park and ride should be all way. Buses should not have to sit and wait for an opening in traffic.

      13. Renton Tech is likely the main draw for the all-day 111. It will create easy connections between Seattle, Bellevue and Renton Tech once the 2 Line opens. Compared to Lake Washington Tech, which is currently almost impossible to reach (hourly service on the 225), Renton Tech will be much more accessible and the 111 will eliminate the need to get to downtown Renton and make the transfer to the 105.

        There’s been a lot of new construction in the Renton Highlands along Sunset. The massive strip mall that was on the west side has been bulldozed and replaced with apartments. The east side is still big box and asphalt, but the area is changing rapidly. The 105, 240 and now the 111 will all serve parts of the Renton Highlands.

      14. “Renton Technical College”

        “Renton Tech”

        Oh, it’s the Renton Tech I’ve heard about for decades. I’d forgotten about that, so I thought it may be something small and insignificant. But Renton Tech probably draws people from a wide area like Bellevue College.

      15. Why can’t we consider building high frequency, high speed trains for the purpose of connecting two major cities?

        For example, Issaquah to Bellevue peaking at 100+ mph along I-90 would definitely be attractive and keep some commuters off the road. A strongly connected, fast bus network can serve the endpoints.

        We keep doing the status quo with an American twist: keep building slow light rail with useless stops along a freeway where cars can go faster.

        I think transit oriented development and light rail in a place like Issaquah is fundamentally wrong. If they wanted that, they would live in a high density area closer to their workplace. Americans live in suburbs to own a larger home and raise a family, which is not traditionally compatible with transit.

        So why not be the first and design high speed (automatic might be even possible and save money), low overhead transit that attracts the millions of people living in suburbs? We can roll the highways and people will ride to work.

      16. Line 4 doesn’t really make much sense, but 100+ mph rail along the I-90 corridor would probably be an order of magnitude more expensive than light rail. To build that we’d have to divert funding from other projects or delay it for decades to wait for the money to build up.

      17. The primary issue is travel time. Transit agencies should start with a target travel time, and then choose the mode/alignment based on that. Issaquah-Bellevue should be 15 minutes; Issaquah-Seattle 20 minutes; Tacoma-Seattle 30 minutes; Kent-Seattle 30 minutes; Burien-Seattle 20 minutes. This is what normal metro, regional rail, or robust BRT lines would do for those distances, as we see in other cities. (The mode depends on the distance: Tacoma/Everett would need full transit-priority lanes or faster-than-Link rail, Kent could make the 162 all-day and fall back to Sounder for peak congestion, and Isssaquah could leverage the existing freeways and make sure it can access the 405 HOT lanes.)

        You don’t need 100 mph rail for these. You just need 60 mph rail or BRT, and long distances need express-level stops. South Link’s sweet spot is intermediate-distance trips, not all the way from Tacoma to Seattle. So you start with RapidRide A and the equivalent in Pierce County. Then overlay Link with limited stops, maybe terminating short of Tacoma. Then overlay a faster alternative over that, stopping only at downtown Seattle, Federal Way, and Tacoma. Voilà, you’ve addressed all three levels/distances of trips. All of these need to run every 10-15 minutes, so that no kind of trip has to wait a long time.

        But ST doesn’t look at those factors, and the cities/counties don’t either.

  5. I’m really glad the appeals against the One Seattle plan were dismissed. Hopefully the plan is enacted without further delays or waterings-down.

    1. I suppose, but it in general it is a very weak plan. It is crazy to me that Spokane (a generally more conservative city) has a far more liberal set of zoning laws than Seattle. In general Seattle is being extremely conservative when it comes to increasing housing opportunities compared to much of the country (let alone the rest of the world).

    2. Yes, Seattle is being surprisingly conservative. Harrell ran on being a Central District activist, but his housing policies have been surprisingly NIMBY. Not all the way, but when Spokane and Bellevue and Shoreline are leaping ahead of you, it’s time to rethink what a big-city mayor should do. But it’s good all the appeals were rejected, because they were all attempts to keep shoulder neighborhoods in 1990s undensity/single-use. If you want undensity/single-use, get further away from the urban villages, not near them or between them. You have western Magnolia, northeast Seattle, Skyway, Newcastle, Renton, and vast parts of Snohomish and Pierce Counties to choose from.

  6. Interesting integrated map of the “Red Line Walking Tour” . Over the years, I’ve done lots of work remodeling houses and big apartment buildings in that area. Planning on taking the walk this May when I’m “in town”.

    I’m not sure many people understand the impact the “Red line” had in cities like Seattle and Tacoma and what really that means to our current society. In the past, home ownership, and the generational wealth it generates, was restricted by race. Now we do roughly the same thing, but instead of race, it’s based on wealth. In the last 25 years in Seattle, we’ve watched the rich get richer (often fantastically so) while much of the middle class slipped into barely keeping their head above water.

    Just like in the Red Line years… home ownership played a big role in this.

    I could put together a walking tour of old brick apartment buildings on East Capitol Hill and Madison Valley that were, 30 years ago affordable for seniors on a fixed income. I helped remodel these beautiful old buildings and now they are the domain of 30 somethings with at least a six figure income. In 50 years will the UW have a class on the “Green Lining” in the early 2000’s? Well, history does repeat itself.

    1. The Red Line era was a direct result of Seattle accommodating national attitudes and FHA rules that were structured to encourage white middle class home ownership. Seattle was unique among US cities in that persons of color were not a high percentage during that era.

      Even though we sensationalize recent neo-racist trends, I don’t see them pervading local urban geography like they did in the last century.

      Instead, the bigger trend that concerns me is gradual centralization of land and housing ownership. In 1900, less than half of residences were owner occupied. In 2020 it was about 2/3rds. Of course, the emergence of home ownership in the US is our homesteading legacy created through westward expansion in the 1800’s yet it was government policy that let that grow bigger in the 1900’s.

      Will we return to an era of much lower home ownership? Are we reviving land ownership “royalty” by effectively advocating for corporate-owned apartment buildings as the preferred TOD, and allowing for widespread ownership of single-family homes by corporations? We give lots attention to density issues, but maybe we should be paying some attention to property ownership consequences too.

      1. Al S.

        I’d agree. I’m not a big TOD supporter because much it has a huge public investment and lets corporate landlords cash it. I’m not a fan of huge public-private ventures period. But the New Left loves them.

        One trend I see with a bullshit marriage between the political Left and corporations. Back in the 1990’s Big Pharma got millions of Americans addicted to opioids…. and now the solution pushed by the Left is medication to treat addiction… sold by the same people at Big Pharma who created the problem in the first place.

        I think the more renters Seattle has, the more politically unstable it becomes. The idea that big landlords and developers aren’t smart enough or organized to never build enough housing to drop the cost of rent completely crazy. The next 25 years will not be the last 25 years in terms of building because the corporations controlling the housing market will maximize their Seattle profits.

      3. GuyOnBeaconHill,

        The lawsuits are bogus postering…. we’re talking about private property rights and the First amendment. Renters need to count on getting screwed over one way or another.

      4. Seattle was unique among US cities in that persons of color were not a high percentage during that era.

        I wouldn’t say Seattle was unique. We have always had a significant number of Asian Americans compared to much of the country. We didn’t have a huge number of African American but we had more than plenty of places. Outside of Massachusetts and Rhode Island there weren’t that many black people in New England. Same goes for most of the mountain states as well as the agricultural Midwest. Even Minnesota had a fairly low number of African Americans. We also had a lot more than Oregon (which has its own rather pathetic history with race).

        Of course we weren’t part of The South — this was never an area where slavery was legal. Nor was it part of the great African American diaspora (like the Midwest). So we didn’t have as many African Americans as those areas. But that doesn’t mean we were unique.

        If you look at where people of color lived it is quite striking. Check out this map. Click on 1970 and you can see the very high percentage of black people who lived east of downtown. In other words in the core of the city a very high percentage of people were black, just like a lot of cities in the Northeast, Industrial Midwest and The South. This was entirely due to redlining. Plenty of African Americans moved here during and after the war and they were forced into the ghettos you can see on that map. Nor was this an accident. In 1964 Seattle voted on Proposition 1, the Open Housing Ordinance, which would have banned racial discrimination in real estate sales and rentals. It failed by a two-to-one margin at the polls. Thus it wasn’t until national laws banned the practice (in 1968) that redlining became illegal in Seattle. But by then many African Americans were already living in poverty stricken areas. They weren’t legal ghettos anymore but they were largely the same.

        Seattle really wasn’t unique when it came to redlining. I would say one difference though was what happened later. By the mid-70s the black community (and plenty of liberal whites) had pushed for improvements in the schools. The geography also helped. Seattle is a bit unusual in that fundamentally attractive neighborhoods can be found spread out around the city. Basically if you have a view you live somewhere nice. Thus you would go from “the ghetto” to a really nice area very quickly. I went to school at Minor, Madrona, Meany and Garfield. Madrona had the most white kids (probably over 50%) because Madrona is fundamentally attractive. White people wanted the views and were OK living on the edge of the ghetto. This helped integrate areas over time. Another is the university. Garfield was pretty much smack dab in the middle of the “inner-city”. It sat in a neighborhood that was 90% black in 1970. But it was also a short bus ride away from Montlake and the UW. Thus it had a mix of wealth and race with plenty of very bright students (and capable faculty). This helped the neighborhood avoid many of the problems in other ghettos across the country. As a result by the 1980s ghettos were gentrifying.

        This is where things are a bit different than the summary tacomee gave. Without a doubt a lot of African Americans in Seattle suffered because of redlining. But plenty bought their house for cheap and then sold it for a bundle a few years later (typically moving south). Thus in terms of generational wealth because of home ownership, many African Americans in Seattle hit the jackpot. It was folks who rented who got screwed. They were forced to rent in those neighborhoods. Then, years later, they were forced to pay ever increasing rental costs to live anywhere in the city.

      5. Al S.

        The ill effects of Seattle becoming more of a city of renters is going to take some time. The main reason to buy a house has always been tied to retirement and old age. First, buying a house is good hedge against inflation and second it becomes the last resource before dying.

        At some point I (hope) to become older than dirt and I’ll no longer be able to stay in my house. I’ll just sell it and move into a nursing home. Real estate is sort of pocket ace at the end of your life. You play it at the end, just before you die.

        My worry with renters is maybe 1/2 of every raise at work over a lifetime is gobbled up by rent increases, so there’s less available for investment. Renters pay out the most money of their life for a place to live during retirement. Home owners pay the least in retirement (if they paid off their mortgage)

        I think we’re only seeing the beginning of the homeless crisis on the Left Coast. There are just so many working renters just barely making it now and what happens when they’re 67? We’re all sad about homelessness, but it doesn’t help the poor bastards living under a blue tarp. I’m afraid that’s the future for 35 year old baristas in the Emerald City.

      7. GuyOnBeaconHill,

        Price fixing might be against the law, but I doubt “Big Property Management” would be found guilty. Back Pages didn’t set the rent amounts, it was a suggestion of the market would bear.

        You think those “price fixing lawsuits” won’t have a chilling effect on new development?

        Big property management see renters in the same way ranchers see cows. Renters are a product that needs to managed for maximum profit. Because Seattle (and the rest of the Country to some extent) are in such dire need of new housing, it’s going to really difficult to restrain property management companies..

      8. They are artificially setting high vacancy rates so that they can charge higher rents, in areas where they have the vast majority of the market share as clients. That worsens both availability and affordability.

        I used to work at a data clearinghouse like this for another industry. The clients almost entirely accept the data clearinghouse’s pricing recommendations, because it maximizes profit margins. And it’s absolutely price fixing. The only reason we (property casualty insurance) got away with it is Congress passed an act carving out an exclusion 80 years ago.

      9. “They are artificially setting high vacancy rates so that they can charge higher rents”

        What do you mean? High vacancy rates would lead to lower rents, not higher. It’s low vacancy rates that cause high rents, because more people are competing for each unit. That makes would-be tenants desperate and willing to accept higher increases in order to get anything. Whereas if there’s a higher vacancy rate, they can be more choosy and go to a building that hasn’t risen the rate so much.

      10. Sorry. I mean they are intentionally leaving units empty, rather than lower their rents to attract tenants, to genererate artificial scarcity. Because the algorithm says that will produce higher profit margins. But that only works if there is defacto collusion on pricing.

      11. Does it require collusion? University Way retail-space owners have been leaving them empty hoping for the next Nordstrom Rack or other moon-paying tenant since at least 2000. That’s not apartment units though; there are hundreds of similar apartment units everywhere, while there are only a handful of storefronts at high-traffic locations attracting particular demographics, so perhaps it’s easier for storefronts to hold out for the dream bidder.

      12. It isn’t necessarily collusion in the sense that companies are working with other companies to form a cartel. But it is more likely to happen with a large organization that owns a lot of property. Same thing goes for apartments. If you own a 12-unit apartment then leaving one empty is a really big hit. On the other hand if you own a 120 unit apartment then leaving one or two empty is no big deal. Thus the more places you own the greater the incentive to “stretch the envelope” and charge more money.

      13. “It isn’t necessarily collusion in the sense that companies are working with other companies to form a cartel. ”

        Actually, that is exactly what it is.

        Some neighborhoods, there are a handful of landlords that are sharing their pricing information, that sometimes can be as much as 90% of the units. The algorithm digests their information and “suggests” what they should set the rent at. Is blatant collusion with the “app” as the data clearinghouse.

    2. Now we do roughly the same thing, but instead of race, it’s based on wealth. .

      Yes, I agree. And it is largely due to the same thing: zoning (and other regulations). The zoning no longer restricts by race but by income and wealth. Sometimes that is the actual goal. If you don’t allow a house to be converted to an apartment then the only people that live in that neighborhood will be wealthy. Yet in a lot of places — like Seattle — that is exactly what the law does. Keep in mind I’m not talking about the various other restrictions (on the size of the structure, setbacks, parking requirements, etc.) that make it difficult to build. I’m just talking about the number of unrelated people that can live in that place. You can build a structure (or convert an existing house) into something that works well as a six bedroom apartment anywhere in the city, but only one family can live in it.

      The result is economic redlining. This article puts it well:

      It is hard to overstate how much is lost when people can no longer choose to move toward opportunity. Social-science research suggests that the single most important decision you can make about your children’s future is not what you name them, or how you educate them, or what extracurriculars you enroll them in—it’s where you raise them. But if Americans cannot afford to move to the places with growing industries and high-paying jobs, or if they can’t switch to a neighborhood with safer streets and better schools, and instead remain stuck where they are, then their children will see their own prospects decline.

      Unfortunately that has happened in much of Seattle. A lot of people — unable to afford a place — move somewhere else. They make less money, have less opportunity and ultimately create less wealth because developers aren’t allowed to build things that people want. They are essentially forced to build mostly for the wealthy. Want to build a mansion? No problem — go ahead. You can build it pretty much anywhere. Want to build an apartment building? Sorry, that is illegal in the vast majority of the city and even where it is legal you have to jump through a bunch of hoops. Good luck.

      1. Ross Bleakly,

        My nephew used to deliver Pepsi in Seattle and he loved it. It’s a fun city to hang out in. But then he got married and transferred to Alabama so he could afford to buy a little house. It’s really Seattle that’s losing out here, not my nephew. He applied to drive for METRO but their hiring process and union crap was just too much and the money? Not good enough to raise a family on.

        There’s really no bus driver shortage. There’s a shortage of bus driver pay. Like anybody with a CDL cares bus service sucks. Not their problem.

        From NYC to Bozeman Mt to Bend Or…. we hear this steady drumbeat about “workforce housing” in overpriced housing markets and it’s 90% crap. We have free market housing and the freedom to move. If Park City UT can’t find anybody to mix $27 cocktails for the rich and famous…. that’s not the bartenders problem.

        Left Coast politics just never stop harping on this message…. “It’s all going to change!” Seattle City Council is currently undermining new State zoning laws to encourage housing growth. So if you’re 22 in Seattle and paying over 40% of your income for rent…. one day you’ll wake up at 37 and nothing will have changed.

    3. It’s “redlining” not “Red Line”. It did originally refer to a red category on a map, but since it’s ended it has been called “redlining” for decades. When ST proposed to have color names for Link lines, some activists objected that “Red Line” connoted redlining and was too traumatic. That was a ridiculous argument because other US metro networks have red lines and this hasn’t been an issue; it’s only in the minds of the activists. Still, they got ST to change the naming scheme, and it actually ended up better because numbered lines are more universally recognizable regardless of language/country. So calling redlining Red Line just adds to confusion.

      1. Mike Orr,

        It’s actual red lines on an actual map. I have one for Tacoma from 1940. there’s other colored lines as well, it rates each neighborhood in desirability. There’s nothing actually racist printed on it… put real estate agents certainly knew what it meant.

      2. Yes, I saw a picture in a book with colored outlines around districts, in four different colors. The federal housing administration sent agents to determine the situation on the ground, and if the agent saw 25% or more minorities in a block, it was redlined. Still, I don’t think it’s useful to call it Red Line now. The other colors are all forgotten and irrelevant, and “redlining” has emerged to express the phenomenon.

  7. My primary reason for going to Issaquah is to hike Tiger Mountain, and I can definitely see Issaquah Link making the trip worse, by adding a connection to an Issaquah shuttle bus to go the last mile that isn’t necessary today.

    1. The opposite (far more common) would be a problem as well. But that assumes that all the buses get truncated. This is understandable (although regrettable to many) for places like West Seattle and Tacoma. But in this case you would be forcing a lot of riders (probably most) to a three-seat ride, something that Metro (and even ST) has been reluctant to do.

  8. 5 Questions to Watch with Dow: Two observations here.

    1. The article correctly points out the ST3 projects are still in planning. This is both a black mark and an opportunity. The agency has been incredibly slow to complete planning for ST3 projects, reflecting mismanagement and decision paralysis. Compared to Sound Move and ST2, the next investments are mired in inertia after NINE years have passed since voter approval. See graphic on page 4: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/system-expansion-implementation-plan.pdf
    Can Dow correct a set of basic efficiency problems he helped create?

    The opportunity: At the same time, BECAUSE the projects are still in planning, this is exactly the right time to revisit assumptions and think differently about the investments. None of these projects has a completed Record of Decision, and thus all are still open to revision. It is during the planning phases that major changes/alternatives should be considered. Once a project transitions into design, THAT’s when you lose flexibility to make major changes that can reduce costs enough to make a difference in the overall program. Can Dow create space to do that before it’s too late?

    2. What this situation points to is a need for a regional conversation, leading to a regional agreement on how to move the program forward overall — before the next project is committed to design and construction. All these projects are moving at different paces, and the risk of one getting ahead of the others — thus limiting future flexibility — is a huge risk to the agency and system users. This pertains specifically to WSLE, Dow’s pet project. There are two possible futures: one with a $7.2+ Billion WSLE project, and one without. The fate of the system overall is much more promising with the latter than the former. I’m not saying ST should abandon WSLE. But they really have to look hard at finding a cheaper way to serve the market. Will the staff be given, and will the board be willing to entertain, fundamentally different paths forward that create opportunities for better outcomes than the path they’re on now? That’s the real question.

    1. Well Dow is a political cat…. that’s the worst (and best) thing about him.

      I think believe Sound Transit has two political problems to work though here.

      The first is anybody who was against ST3 back 2016 hasn’t changed their mind. In fact the “NO” people even more entrenched against the whole damn thing now more than ever.

      The second is it’s tough going forward without cutting expectations and not making supporters feel let down. I’d guess even Ryan Mellow, a big time transit supporter in Pierce County, might support a lawsuit against Sound Transit if the County is slighted. I’ve posted the 2016 ST3 voters guide here many times. There’s the rail spine the public voted for. Walk away from that and lawsuits will happen.

      1. I don’t think the first will be true. As the ST2 projects open, more people will have the opportunity to use Link, which should grow support. Also, population growth in this region is faster in neighborhoods that are more likely to support transit, so even if the number of “no” votes is up, the “yes” voters are likely up more.

      2. I’m not so sure AJ. There are a few fundamentals to consider.

        The biggest one was the ST Board decision to extend ST3 taxes beyond the sunset period. In theory those taxes could be permanent. At the very least, the system will cost money to maintain and even renovate before the sunset of ST3. By lengthening the taxation period, the Board has created a new level of distrust with the public.

        The second is about where it should go. There aren’t many unserved places left! Those that are will not be as desirable as the ST3 destinations — and those were less desirable than ST2 destinations. There are diminishing ridership returns. Getting the ST3 destinations kind of create what someone would imagine as a completed system. And maintenance and renovation are a harder political sell than sonething new is.

        The final issue is that technology and politics could be quite different. If fuel prices skyrocket more people will look to transit. If gangs take over Link platforms and trains, riders will quickly walk away from supporting Link. There are many bigger unknowns that could really sway public support one way or the other.

      3. AJ,

        In 2016 Greater Seattle was flush and the future looked good.

        In 2025 things don’t look nearly as rosy. I don’t believe a ST4 would have a chance of currently passing. I think if it was possible for voters to claw back some of ST3 money and spend that money on housing… that might even pass.

        The biggest problem here, and something I don’t think many posters on this blog understand, is Sound Transit is about a lot more than just “transit”. Pierce County was absolutely promised light rail to the airport and beyond in ST3. Expect lawsuits if that ever drops off the ST “to do” list. And it’s not about transit, it’s about tax payers paying into something for a decade and then being told “their” part of the project “isn’t worth doing”. Yes, the light rail to Tacoma might not be worth doing and most of the people who will be pissed about dropping it would have never ridden the damn train anyway….. but there’s that pesky voter guide from 2016. I personally know one city council person in Tacoma who’d love to pick a fight with ST and they want to be mayor.

        Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

      4. I don’t think anyone in Pierce, Snohomish, or South King would consider ST3 a completed system. The Link aspect of our regional transit system may be mostly built out (NW Seattle and Lake City probably disagree), but there are still massive opportunities for reginal investment. Sounder can continue to expand service. The Stride network could be built out (167 is an intriguing corridor). KCM will need money for more Rapid Ride investments, CT could enhance their Swift network, and PT’s 5 line BRT network is planned but currently unfunded. Technological changes like electrification and automation could be implemented.

        There’s no need to sell “maintenance and renovation.” Those are fully funded under current taxes. I’m not sure why fully funding long term maintenance will create “distrust” with the public. Most American transit levies are feckless in investing in only shiny new things and forgetting to fund regular maintenance; ST should be commended for permanently funding State of Good Repair.

        Certainly a future levy needs to wait to see how the region evolves, economically, politically, and technologically.

    2. To be fair, a lot of the planning has been slow because they just can’t spend the money. They run into the debt limit. They when they do the planning they find it is more expensive then they initially thought which pushes it out further. So they can delay planning for something like Issaquah Link a really long time — it won’t matter because they can’t get started until then anyway.

      All these projects are moving at different paces, and the risk of one getting ahead of the others — thus limiting future flexibility — is a huge risk to the agency and system users.

      But I think that is the plan. Dow is well aware of the fact that projects sometimes fall short and you need another vote. That has been the case with Sound Transit from the very beginning. The question is how they fall short. With the spine it is obvious — it doesn’t go all the way. So maybe Mariner to South Federal Way or Boeing Everett to Fife. In Seattle it is clear what the priority is (for Dow): West Seattle. That is why it is being built first even though it adds very little value as a standalone project. If they were being sensible it would be the other way around. Ballard to Westlake (even with the awkward transfer) still adds a lot of value — arguably the most in ST3. Sure, it is annoying for people to have to transfer to get to the south end of downtown but not only is there the transfer to Link but they can also just hop on a bus. It would be perfectly reasonable to build this as “Stage 1” which means it would be perfectly reasonable to build that once we run out of money.

      But Dow doesn’t want West Seattle being delayed because he knows full well that the case for it is weak. Fail to get to West Seattle in the short run and it is quite likely that we never run trains to West Seattle. So he is making sure that West Seattle gets a foot in the door even if it means that there is a very good chance that more valuable projects never get built. This means that if Ballard Link gets truncated it is from the south (e. g. SoDo to Uptown) so that the West Seattle trains can use the wonderful new downtown tunnel folks have been talking about for years. If Ballard Link doesn’t actually go to Ballard so be it. I would be willing to bet that is what Dow is thinking.

    3. I mean… looking at the way the entire Sound Transit planning process has gone, Constantine (and basically everyone else with the actual decision-making power) is not too interested in the utility of ST3 as transportation – as a means for people to get from one place to another. He sees it as a way to spend money. He would probably put it in terms of economic development – jobs building the train tracks, bus lanes, stations, and parking garages, jobs operating the trains, jobs building whatever goes next to the stations.

      So to him, efficiency is beside the point. His goal is appease every potential objector and get as much money spent as possible, no matter what it is actually spent on. Cutting costs will only come into play if the money doesn’t come in for some reason. We can already see that the response to the ST3 cost explosion is to just collect taxes longer. The period will be extended hundreds of years, if necessary. And then when the pitiful transit benefits of ST3 become apparent, the next step is raising taxes again for ST4.

      Efficiency is just not happening until the federal grants stop coming or the referendums start failing.

      1. Or he has wishful thinking that his CID/N and S and West Seattle line will be the cat’s meow in ridership and usefulness, without looking at how people in DSTT1 will get to the stations. ST has diagrams of the walking paths but doesn’t address how would-be passengers would feel at all those level changes and 8 minutes walking just to get from one Link line to another.

      2. Christopher Cramer,

        I actually think Trump is a political gift to the Left Coast. City governments, County governments, the three State governments…. All completely underwater with half built projects and a nasty (and growing) homeless problem. Trump had nothing to do with any of this of course, but then pols like Dow never waste a good crisis.

        Trump certainly is an excellent political excuse we’ll hear over and over in the coming years, but it does nothing to fix our transit woes. But like you wrote, Dow never really was about transit.

  9. I went to Portland this week for a trade show and rode the Amfleet Cascades both ways. For anyone who has used Amtrak east of the Mississippi, the Amfleets will be pretty familiar. But if you’ve done most of your trips in the PNW, the Amfleets might be something new for you. They were originally ordered during the Nixon administration and delivered during the Ford years, so they are old. I’ve heard that some have traveled over 4 million miles. Fortunately, they were built to last forever and they still offer a comfortable, solid, stainless steel ride. Unfortunately, the interiors are dated (hello Gerald Ford) and the windows are tiny.

    Compared to the Horizon coaches, which always felt like they were built cheap and had long exceeded their pull dates, the Amfleets feel like they are good for another 20 years.

    1. I think the Amfleets were renovated 20-25 years ago with the blue curtains. I recall they used to be more 70s inside with tan, brown and orange colored curtains, carpet and seating.

  10. I’m curious about the Issaquah-Kirkland line’s routing near South Bellevue. Why does it follow 405 up to East Main? Keeping the route along 90 to South Bellevue would require building less new track and let Seattle-bound passengers from Issaquah, Eastgate, and Factoria transfer at South Bellevue instead of East Main.

    1. There are major engineering hurdles to follow I-90 past 405.
      The freeway interchange leaves no room for tracks to pass through. I’ve looked at it from multiple angles, and the closest option I can see is space for maaaaaybe one track to pass under 405 just north of I-90 Westbound, but the constraints to build even that are dubious. Or you could just rebuild the whole interchange again for a few hundred million $
      Tunneling under the interchange faces deep bridge pylons, and might also involve going under Richards Rd/factoria Blvd.
      Bridging over the interchange would be a very tall, very long bridge, would probably mean moving the high voltage power lines overhead, and still has to cross Richards Rd as well as the old rail bridge/ future Eastrail.
      And any solution still involves crossing the mercer slough which is hazardous politically, environmentally, and engineering-wise. Then an interchange has to be built with the existing tracks which are very high in the air.

      In short, while following I-90 to South Bellevue makes sense from a rider perspective, it does not make sense from any other perspective. But then again, the whole of Line 4 doesn’t make much sense either.

      1. Yeah, it would be very expensive. It is the same reason the trains from Seattle don’t stop at Factoria. Doing so would be superior routing but really push up the cost.

      2. I wonder if it helps if WSDOT removes the I-405 SB to I-90 WB HOV only bridge. This will provide some space for elevated alignment in the median.

        It just sounds like a huge stretch if people from Issaquah to Seattle will need to ride all the way to East Main to transfer. A lot of people may just end up driving all the way to South Bellevue since most people’s homes are no where near Issaquah station anyway.

      3. It just sounds like a huge stretch if people from Issaquah to Seattle will need to ride all the way to East Main to transfer. A lot of people may just end up driving all the way to South Bellevue since most people’s homes are no where near Issaquah station anyway.

        I think Metro will just keep running express buses to Mercer Island (from Eastgate and Issaquah). The only significant change I could see to the buses is that the 554 gets truncated (in Eastgate) unless they just get rid of the 554 and Metro shifts service to Bellevue Way. Otherwise I would expect the buses to remain the same. Issaquah Link doesn’t really help anyone get to Seattle — it helps people get to some of the places with the East Side.

    2. Good question!

      The 2016 ST3 plan wasn’t too far after the mess South Bellevue alignment concern with Mercer Slough. So I think the political choice was to tie it in at East Main by following the ERC to avoid dealing with that.

      However there were facts seemingly ignored at the time.

      1. East Main is both lousy for making reverse direction transfers as it has side platforms. ST was simply not visionary enough to revise the East Main platform layout to a center platform (change order) upon ST3 passage. (They did not add tracks for a Line 4 branch either.)

      2. The tracks would still merge next to Mercer Slough and run across Mercer Slough. The latter may be even more environmentally disruptive to Mercer Slough than a long cable-stayed bridge span crossing the slough to South Bellevue would be.

      3. It’s not clear whether 4 Line riders from the I-90 corridor are going more to Bellevue or Seattle. If 2/3rds are going to/from Seattle it’s way out of direction.

      It seems obvious to me that 4 Line could be automated with single track sections over sensitive wetlands if it just went between South Bellevue and Issaquah. South Kirkland has pathetic ridership forecasts anyway. An automated train could physically sit with open doors at South Bellevue waiting for riders from either direction on a new platform above the existing one. It would reduce the tracks and platform lengths (and cost) for the stations — possibly enough to add things like the Lakemont Station or a more convenient Bellevue College station entrance.

    3. There was hysteria over routing light rail through the Mercer Slough (somehow 20 lanes of freeway plus a regional trail is A-OK but 2 tracks of clean electric rail is going to destroy the planet). This is logic of a California narcassist NIMBY “worship every blade of grass” environmentalist, usually environmentalists here in the Pacific NW totally get it on transit and carbon reduction through urbanism and smart transportation. Makes absolutely no sense to build redundant track along Eastrail, picking up no new station areas and adding 5+ mins onto travel times for Seattle-Eastgate/Issaquah only to tie into East Main (which as been mentioned is not designed for transfers with side platforms). Even if most are going to Bellevue from Eastgate/Issaquah, why handicap the travel to Seattle with this inferior out of direction route (I highly suspect Seattle is the bigger destination from Issaquah if one is using transit from suburban/exurban Issaquah).

      This speaks to the way we design transit in the US, we handicap it in it’s routing and design to serve some special interest or misguided policy (while still spending a ton of money) then find it underperforms due to design/route decision. People continue to drive SOV on high negative impact roads making congestion worse.

      1. I count only 15, or 16 if the trail gets counted too! I guess it would be 20 if the breakdown lanes get added.

        Regardless, it’s sad how much people get “concerned” about transit project impacts that result in costs and opposition that would never get forced onto a highway or bicycle project.

      2. “I think Metro will just keep running express buses to Mercer Island (from Eastgate and Issaquah). ”

        If Link to Issaquah is only meant to serve trips between Issaquah and eastside, I am not sure if there is a strong case for Issaquah to have a light rail extension.

        I think Issaquah Link Extension is meant to serve both Bellevue and Seattle.
        In Metro Connect Concept, which might be very out of touch now, 554 is not included in 2050 vision where Issaquah Link is assumed to open. The express routes from Mercer Island all skip Issaquah downtown and go directly to Issaquah Highland. So I think the idea that people from Issaquah to Seattle should take light rail and transfer at East-Main at least exists in certain regional transit plan.

        I am not surprised that they would think it is ok for people from Issaquah to Seattle to transfer at East Main given they think they can propose shorten 522 to Shoreline South citing full 2 Line opening as the reason.

      3. “I think Issaquah Link Extension is meant to serve both Bellevue and Seattle.”

        That may be the intent — but for a Seattle it is a poor execution.

        The 4 Line planning was seemingly done by decision makers like they’re adding a highway.

        For a rider the planned setup forces bus transferring in Issaquah to the 4 Line. Then Seattle is a second transfer. So a rider from most of Issaquah to Seattle would have to wait for two trains in addition to going two miles north to East Main! Today some Issaquah bus routes are direct and soon will end at Mercer Island.

        Eastgate ridership on the 4 Line is also forecasted to be low. That’s likely do to the added walking hassle to get to the 4 Line from Bellevue College campus buildings as opposed to catching a bus to Downtown Bellevue at a stop inside the campus.

        We all may have different visions on what is better — but I think many of the posters would agree that in its current incarnation the 4 Line is poorly planned for a rider to use. It looks great on a map though!

        Time will tell if ST and its stakeholders see its flaws and offer solutions — or blindly follow what appeared in the ST3 document. I’m hopeful that when Eastsiders start to ride 2 Line into Seattle that they see things more like a rider rather than a driver.

      4. “they think they can propose shorten 522 to Shoreline South citing full 2 Line opening as the reason.”

        The reason is the 1 Line. East King is paying for the 522 and Stride 3, and what they want is the fastest trip to downtown Seattle, and they think that transferring to Link at Shoreline South is the fastest way. However, the 522 restructure is delayed until the full 2 Line because ST was afraid the 1 Line alone might get overcrowded.

      5. “However, the 522 restructure is delayed until the full 2 Line because ST was afraid the 1 Line alone might get overcrowded.”

        Except, how does postponing the 522 restructure make Link any less crowded? What matters is the crowds at Capitol Hill, not Northgate, so whether bus passengers switch to Link at Roosevelt or 145th doesn’t really matter.

      6. “Except, how does postponing the 522 restructure make Link any less crowded? What matters is the crowds at Capitol Hill, not Northgate,”

        ST has a hard time understanding where and why crowding occurs. It’s planning a second tunnel between Westlake and Northgate, when the biggest crowding is between Westalke and Capitol Hill (and to a lesser extent Westlake and U-District). Route 522 riders are already transferring at Roosevelt. Does ST think ridership will double or triple when the 522/Stride 3 is moved to Shoreline South?

      7. “The reason is the 1 Line. East King is paying for the 522 and Stride 3, and what they want is the fastest trip to downtown Seattle, and they think that transferring to Link at Shoreline South is the fastest way. However, the 522 restructure is delayed until the full 2 Line because ST was afraid the 1 Line alone might get overcrowded.”

        My understanding is that this is an artifact. Back when ST was having a crisis of not being able to store all their rail cars before the full 2 line opens, 1 of the possible solutions was going to be to have half their trains turn back at Northgate while the other half went to Lynnwood. If the 522 was currently serving Roosevelt, with trains every 5 minutes, then it wouldn’t make sense to reroute it to Shoreline with trains every 10 minutes. ST was planning to have the 522 go to the closest Link station with full service. Ultimately ST figured out a different solution to rail car storage issue, but by then it was too late to change plans for the 522.

        Is it true that East Link is paying for all of S3? Shoreline and Lake Forest Park are North King. East King only starts at Kenmore. So it would make sense if North King is paying for some of S3. I will say that even though the ship has sailed, it is frustrating to me that routing the 522 to 148th takes precedence over serving neighborhood connections such as Lake City. I’ll die on the hill that it’s bad transit design for ST and Metro to send all of their buses down 145th and not have a single route that connects Lake City with the Northshore cities.

      8. it is frustrating to me that routing the 522 to 148th takes precedence over serving neighborhood connections such as Lake City.

        I agree. In general the routing is quite poor, especially since the 522 (and future Stride line) will not keep west to Shoreline Community College. If it did then riders from the northeastern suburbs would be connected the college as well as to buses going on Aurora and Greenwood Avenues. It is kind of the worst of both worlds. Current routing is actually better in many ways, especially if it was extended to the UW. Then the 72 (or 65) could be sent across 145th to Shoreline College, making that same connection. ST made a bus route that is just not very good from a network standpoint, leaving Metro struggling with how best to fix it. There are a lot of flaws with Metro’s restructure in my opinion, but blame for this one lies entirely with ST.

        Oh, and I get the “we are paying for it — it is what we want” idea. But that doesn’t really excuse bad design. Even if they insisted on an east-west approach they should have worked with Metro to run it to Shoreline College (even if Metro paid for that section). Oh, and it is worth noting that 145th will have nothing in the way of bus lanes or BAT lanes. In contrast Lake City Way does. Not as much as they should, but at least they have something.

      9. If Link to Issaquah is only meant to serve trips between Issaquah and eastside, I am not sure if there is a strong case for Issaquah to have a light rail extension.

        Exactly. Welcome to ST3 Assessment 101.

        In Metro Connect Concept, which might be very out of touch now, 554 is not included in 2050 vision where Issaquah Link is assumed to open.

        I think that is likely. But I also think either ST or Metro runs a bus from central Issaquah to Mercer Island. Otherwise people in central Issaquah are looking at a fairly slow 3-seat ride to Downtown Seattle (take a bus to the Issaquah Link Station, take the train to East Main, take the train to Seattle). Meanwhile, there are people driving to a park and ride. If they are headed towards Seattle then they are far more likely to drive to South Bellevue or even the Highlands (which is closer and they would be driving against traffic I assume).

        It is also quite possible that the bus serving central Issaquah is not an express. It is also quite possible that there is a combination. During peak they run a bus from central Issaquah to Mercer Island. But the rest of the day they run a bus that makes a lot of stops along the way. That way commuters take the express (without having to drive to the Highlands or South Bellevue) but at least have a straightforward (if slower) way to get there the rest of the day.

      10. My understanding is that this is an artifact. Back when ST was having a crisis of not being able to store all their rail cars before the full 2 line opens, 1 of the possible solutions was going to be to have half their trains turn back at Northgate while the other half went to Lynnwood. If the 522 was currently serving Roosevelt, with trains every 5 minutes, then it wouldn’t make sense to reroute it to Shoreline with trains every 10 minutes. ST was planning to have the 522 go to the closest Link station with full service. Ultimately ST figured out a different solution to rail car storage issue, but by then it was too late to change plans for the 522.

        That is by far the best explanation I’ve ever heard for why they did that. Thanks.

  11. Just gave my two cents for the WA State Rail Plan:

    1) double the frequency between SEA-PDX
    2) Travel time 3hours or less. So not necessarily high speed.
    3) New multi-trip service between Seattle and Snoqualmie Pass as a “ski train”,, as they do in Denver.

    1. I would love some sort of ski train or public ski bus (there was talk of MI/South Bellevue to Snoqualmie pass KCM buses here earlier) but the issue with doing it in rail for Snoqualmie is that the tracks aren’t there anymore and are the Palouse to Cascades trail. Something like a bus that runs relatively frequently (30 mins?) in winter and summer (with reduced schedules in the shoulder seasons) with shuttles between popular trailheads / ski resorts at the pass could be very popular.

      Maybe more reasonable is a train using the existing Stevens Pass railway to bypass the traffic at the stop lights with a shuttle going from as close to the west portal of the tunnel (Scenic? Skykomish?) as reasonable up to the resort.

      1. There are already winter ski buses available to both Snoqualmie and Stevens. However, the frequency is something like one round trip per day, and the fares are quite pricey.

        Part of the reason why a ski bus is so expensive is that, once the bus arrives at the ski resort, the bus must either deadhead all the way back to the city empty, or simply sit there at the resort until it’s time to go back. In practice, deadheading back to the city would take too long, and leave too little time for the bus to do anything else until it’s time to head back, so the bus stays at the resort. Which means that, to break even, the fares for just one round trip must cover the cost of the bus+bus driver for the entire day, even if the round trip driving is just 3 hours or so. Which is quite expensive.

      2. Ski buses/trains really only need to be one a day, arriving in time for opening and leaving 30 mins after last run. No one really wants to start skiing later in the day when passes are $100-250/day, even with a season pass, it’s a lot of effort to travel there to get in 3 hours of skiing (those that do, live close by). Skiing is very well suited to transit given its concentrated travel windows (to in the morning within a tight window and back in the evening) and everyone going to a single location.

        Winter Park Express is a great operation and does pretty good business.

      3. Depends. For a beginner skier, you can’t do much more than three hours anyway, without being tired, and lift tickets that cover only the beginner runs tend to be much cheaper (they’ll get the real money from you later, when you get hooked and graduate to more advanced runs). Not everybody wants to wake up at 5 AM either.

  12. Another 2-Line testing video courtesy of Eastside Transit. This one is of live wire testing west of Mercer Island Station.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fqtRuTL7SKo&pp=0gcJCX4JAYcqIYzv

    It’s nice to see more progress on Full ELE, but it appears that the contractor is now well behind on getting the floating bridge segment ready and into the testing phase. Still not even a dead tow test.

    If I had to bet, and I don’t want to, I’d bet that Full ELE won’t open until 2026. Hopefully I am wrong.

    1. Oh, and yesterday I noticed an LRV parked at JPS, but I couldn’t tell if it was equipped for dynamic envelope testing or not.

      So there is progress on both ends of the bridge. All we need is the middle part to be completed.

    2. I saw a train running at full speeed on the curved bridge over I-90 south of South Bellevue.

      I have also seen train sets sitting at Star Lake every time I pass the station on I-5 for the past few weeks. I don’t think the Federal Way extension will have any delay.

      1. We have commenters here who frequently take transit and drive across I-90. Has anyone else seen full speed Link testing between South Bellevue and Mercer Island? I can’t find any pictures, videos, or written accounts of that happening. Al. S, do you remember the date you saw it?

      2. It was late night in the last week — between 10 PM and midnight. I also remember that the train even had 3-4 cars.

        I can’t imagine why it was so late.

      3. @Al S.,

        The stretch between SBS and MIS has been ready for a while now. There were some previous videos I saw of full (or nearly full) speed testing on that stretch something like a year ago IIRC. Pitty they can’t open up to MIS at the same time they open DRLE.

        As per FWLE, they towed a LRV across the long span several months ago so they could start doing fit and function type testing on the south segment. Unfortunately the long span was not ready for such testing.

        In that regard FWLE is much like Full ELE — both ends of the line are well ahead of the middle. But you can’t really do much without the middle being ready.

      5. I’ll add that the train signals often look fully activated, and I see electrical trucks on both tracks almost every time I am on the freeway next to the tracks.

        I suspect that ST deferred opening MI with Downtown Redmond for a variety of reasons — even though it would have been nice.

        And I still rue that there is no way to easily run a Judkins Park to Eastside replacement bus shuttle. There’s just not a safe place to turn buses around at Judkins Park Station. The lack of a place to reverse buses (and shuttles and even private cars) could be useful in a number of other ways too. I may be alone in this opinion — but I think some future project will accommodate a turnaround there, and when it finally gets proposed the powers that be will tout it as a transit improvement rather than a remedy to an overlooked design feature at the outset.

      6. @Al S.,

        “And I still rue that there is no way to easily run a Judkins Park to Eastside replacement bus shuttle.”

        I don’t think we will ever see any sort of major investment in a “bus turnaround facility” at JPS. And for good reasons.

        Remember, the regional transportation goal is to move away from an over reliance on buses and more towards an expanded rail system. As such, any major investment would be better spent on reliability improvements for Link as opposed to investments in turning around buses that will hopefully rarely be needed.

        Additionally, if a bus bridge across I-90 is needed, the better place to start it is at IDS. All the required infrastructure is already there and paid for. And starting the bus bridge there would much better serve 1-Line riders coming from the south.

        Think of it. If the bus bridge started at JPS, then a rider coming from the airport and heading to Redmond would first make a 1-Line to 2-Line transfer at IDS, then travel just one stop, and then do a 2-Line to bus transfer.

        It would be much better to have that rider simply do a 1-Line to bus transfer at IDS and be done with it.

      8. @Al — If and when we need a bus shuttle (because of an outage on East Link) there are a number of options. My guess is the bus would do this sort of thing, which is similar to the 554: https://maps.app.goo.gl/fsud3CpVgtGMqJPR8. So that covers both the Judkins Park and CID Stations (more or less). Even if Link is operating between CID and Judkins Park (but not across the water) and even if there was a turnaround at Judkins Park there would be pressure to go to CID (so that a lot of people could avoid a transfer).

      9. @ John:

        I understand how the long-range interchange redesign could more easily accommodate a bus “turn around”. The change to the northbound Rainier to eastbound 90 ramp could allow for left turns from southbound Rainier as well.

        The challenge though is this: How does a bus stop on the right side of the street (southbound Rainier) and then immediately turn left when there is no left turn pocket or signal head? The queue jump could be modified to give a special light to get buses to the on-ramp — but since it’s not part of a regular route I don’t see why Metro would ask for it.

      10. it looks like buses can exit westbound, drop off passengers, and immediately get back on I-90 eastbound

        Not from what I can tell. I think they will retain the same basic ramp configuration. They will just make it safer by changing the angles (“T-up” the ramps). To reverse directions you are still looking at this sort of thing: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7dxZMtUfJVJTVVzdA. That is not realistic on a bus. I think the shortest option would be to use Poplar to the north (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ziEfysvjtKvng3hU7) or something similar to the south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ckem4QjzxAD6vyp37). Either way it looks pretty messy — might as well follow the existing path of the 554 and make a loop that includes the CID (in my opinion).

      11. How does a bus stop on the right side of the street (southbound Rainier) and then immediately turn left when there is no left turn pocket or signal head?

        Exactly. It isn’t even a bus stop issue. The westbound I-90 to northbound Rainier ramp doesn’t even merge until a few feet from Bush Place. That is basically where the eastbound I-90 ramp would start (if it was more of a “T”). So that would mean that a bus would basically go from the off-ramp, cut across Rainier and go to the on-ramp (even if it didn’t stop at any bus stops). To pull that off you would probably need a special left-turn traffic light (as you mentioned). You would probably also need to make the off-ramp wider (for the bus stop and a place where the bus would wait for the left-turn signal). That is a lot of work for something that wouldn’t be used on a regular basis. I just don’t see it happening.

      12. @ Ross/ Lazarus:

        There are challenges running a temporary bus service bridge all the way to IDS.

        Keep in mind that 2 Line trains can run from IDS to JPS in 2-3 minutes.

        And if 2 Line Westside trains have to reverse they’ll need to use the tracks headed to Judkins Park anyway. Plus JPS will have riders making trips in Seattle so every 2 Line train will likely still go to JPS in a disruption.

        The HOV ramp from I-90 to Dearborn was permanently closed with 2 Line construction. So buses would have to get off at Rainier and run on city streets in mixed traffic for over a mile each way to get to and from IDS. The bus travel time to do that has got to be at least 5 minutes each way if not 10 at busy times. That makes using JPS much faster and cheaper to operate as a shuttle end point even for most riders.

        Since a low percentage of 2 Line riders are transferring at IDS to go south on 1 Line or maybe to get to/from Sounder at peak times, the effort is still there. However the time it takes to ride on a bus on city streets is still probably just as long as it would to transfer at JPS and may actually take longer. Sure there’s extra stress and effort transferring twice — but on the other hand it would also be more confusing to explain that the temporary service to riders coming from stations north of IDS is running from IDS rather than JPS if 2 Line trains are still running to JPS anyway.

      13. There’s a westbound I-90 ramp that exits on the southbound side of Rainier. The bus would turn right onto Rainier, then left back onto I-90, though of course that would need a left turn lane from Rainier southbound to I-90 eastbound. See: https://imgur.com/a/EjzJDZz

        If that’s not possible, running to CID and turning around seems reasonable and maybe ideal since that would connect to the 1 line (Dearborn > 4th or 5th > Jackson, similar to the 554)

      14. @Al S

        Exiting at Rainier and then going to CID means both Judkins Park and CID would be served by the shuttle. It would certainly be more expensive, but a bus turnaround would be significantly more so

      15. Since a low percentage of 2 Line riders are transferring at IDS to go south on 1 Line or maybe to get to/from Sounder at peak times, the effort is still there.

        CID ridership is bound to be much higher than Judkins Park ridership. A lot of people get off the train and just walk to their destination. But yes, if the bus ended there then plenty of people would transfer. Sounder is the obvious one bus also the streetcar to get up to First Hill. Or they would take a bus south. Even a bus to the north is quite reasonable, again to avoid a transfer. For example if you are headed to Uptown you could take this shuttle, walk over to the appropriate bus stop and then take the 1 or D Line. Sure, you could take Link to the middle of downtown and transfer there, but most people wouldn’t (it is an extra transfer and Link isn’t that frequent in the best of times, let alone an outage). Even if you plan on just using the buses to get to the middle of downtown it would be easier if the bus got to CID (just because there are a lot more of them). The 7 is frequent but it can’t compete with all the buses running up Third.

        I also don’t think it is a given that the trains serve Judkins Park if there is an outage. Chances are they don’t run a stub train at all. In other words the service pattern could be very similar to what it is today. The 2 Line goes from South Bellevue to Redmond while the 1 Line goes from Lynnwood to Federal Way. That simplifies things greatly. You don’t have to worry about single tracking the Seattle version of the 2 Line or how often it runs (compared to the main line). Basically everything between South Bellevue and CID is closed.

        Will the buses experience a lot of traffic during peak? Of course. No offense, but welcome to our world. If you are inconvenienced terribly by this outage because of traffic on Rainier and Jackson then please write a letter to SDOT. I’ll cosign it for you.

      16. @ John D:

        “Exiting at Rainier and then going to CID means both Judkins Park and CID would be served by the shuttle.”

        With the ramps starting and ending just south of Charles Street, how would such a bus continuing to IDS serve the JPS station entrance? The bus would have to stop several hundred feet north of JPS.

      17. Exiting at Rainier and then going to CID means both Judkins Park and CID would be served by the shuttle. It would certainly be more expensive, but a bus turnaround would be significantly more so.

        Exactly.

        The bus would turn right onto Rainier, then left back onto I-90, though of course that would need a left turn lane from Rainier southbound to I-90 eastbound. See: https://imgur.com/a/EjzJDZz

        Yeah, that seems the most plausible. Basically “T-up” the eastbound on-ramp to I-90. Once you do that then traffic from both directions could use it. But I don’t think they will do that. Figure 20 shows that, but there is no text actually supporting it. Instead they want to “Bump out curbs to reduce to one lane through the pedestrian crossing to slow traffic.” If they really wanted to make that a ‘T’ intersection they wouldn’t need to do that. Metro/SDOT might object as well since this would shrink the bus lane. That is a little thing but I assume if northbound traffic is stopped at the light here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/pDWUa4fmPtRE6qEU8) it is nice to have all that room for the bus to use. Otherwise even a minor backup would force the bus to wait behind traffic. All that is a very long winded way of saying I doubt they change the angle on that ramp. Even if the do they would have to add a special bus-only left turn light that is only used on the rare times that there is an outage on East Link. I just don’t see it.

        In contrast I definitely see the other ramps changing. I also think there is a possibility they get rid of the ramp in the northeast quadrant (westbound I-90 to northbound Rainier). I started a different thread for that.

      18. With the ramps starting and ending just south of Charles Street, how would such a bus continuing to IDS serve the JPS station entrance? The bus would have to stop several hundred feet north of JPS.

        Yes, just like the 554 (a bus I referenced). You would stop at Charles & Rainier (both directions) thus serving the neighborhood. Folks from the north part of the neighborhood benefit while folks from the south have to walk further. It is quite possible that there are more people to the north, which means that a majority would actually benefit. Meanwhile, you still connect to the 7 (for southbound trips) and the 106 (both directions).

        At worst it means that someone who is eager to get on Link has to wait until CID (if they don’t want to walk several hundred feet). But that assumes that ST is running a stub to Judkins Park which is not a given. Even if they are running a stub it might be better to wait until CID so that you get the benefit of doubled frequency heading north.

      19. @ Ross:

        Having a temporary bus bridge stop several hundred feet north of JPS station entrance sounds like a poor, half-baked idea to me. It seems very confusing for a temporary and rare occurrence. The only way I see it even making any sense is if there are electronic signs with instructions and diagrams for transferring riders to look at.

      20. Having a temporary bus bridge stop several hundred feet north of JPS station entrance sounds like a poor, half-baked idea to me. It seems very confusing for a temporary and rare occurrence.

        But that is the nature of all shuttle service. Shuttle service does not have to replicate Link service — it never does. It just has to provide a decent level of service for those who suddenly find themselves without Link. In this case the main thing it needs to do is cross the lake and connect from one station to the other (e. g. Bellevue Downtown to CID).

        Just to back up here, Judkins Park is a minor station. The location of Judkins Park Station is obviously terrible in terms of serving the neighborhood but it is the only option that was affordable given Sound Transit wanted to run in the freeway envelope. If anything, the temporary stop is better than the real stop. So the idea that it is somehow a tragedy that (during the rare times when they actually run a shuttle bus) this isn’t right next to a station (literally in the middle of the freeway) is absurd. It is really not that big of a deal.

        The main value of the station is that it connects to the Metro 7. This will do it. The secondary value is that it serves the neighborhood. This will do that as well. As I wrote up above, some people will have a shorter walk and some people will have to walk farther.

        Consider what will happen when Lynnwood Link is broken and trains don’t go farther than Northgate. Specifically, consider what will happen at Mountlake Terrace. Will they run a shuttle bus right up next to the station or will they stop by the freeway stop? I think it is pretty obvious: They will stop by the freeway. Thus riders will have to walk considerably farther. Worse yet, no one benefits. Every rider has to walk further (unlike in this case where many people come out ahead).

        Or consider what is happening right now. What if I want to get from Northgate to Symphony. Last week this was a simple ride. Now the train runs to Westlake and I have three choices. I can wait for the train-to-train transfer. I can transfer from Link to a bus running on the surface. Or I can walk from Westlake to Symphony. Google suggests the third option. This sounds like a big pain. It is. But that doesn’t mean that ST should run a shuttle from Northgate to Symphony Station. People can transfer or they can walk.

        The same thing would be true here. Folks can walk or catch the 7 (after going across the lake).

      21. @Al S,

        “Having a temporary bus bridge stop several hundred feet…….seems very confusing for a temporary and rare occurrence.”

        Nobody expects a high quality of service from a bus bridge. After all it is operating in the same traffic that LR was built to bypass in the first place. The experience of using the bus bridge just reinforces in people’s minds the reason for building something better in the first place.

        But as you say, people do expect the bus bridge to be “temporary”, and the more temporary the better. So investments in LR operations and reliability are a much better use of limited funds than building bus infrastructure that might not ever get used.

        And it’s unclear if ST would even choose to run a bus bridge on I-90 anyway. ST has already installed dual crossovers on each fixed span and they are only about 1.4 miles apart.

        That isn’t that far apart. So ST could run a Link Shuttle like they are doing very successfully right now in ST Seattle. Or they could just single track across the bridge and not even run a shuttle. It’s only approx a 1.5 min transit time.

        So I don’t think this discussion of bus bridges at JPS is all that useful. ST has many more tools in their toolkit, and better tools at that.

      22. ‘Just to back up here, Judkins Park is a minor station. ”

        Well that makes it really clear that you are misinformed about Judkins Park Station, and let your personal prejudices show in your language.

        According to Sound Transit’s own 2040 estimates published here in STB, of the planned 32 station platforms within Seattle, Judkins Park ranks 21 in estimated boardings. It’s higher than Mt Baker and Columbia City. At over 4,700 forecasted weekday boardings (9,400 in station activity) it is more than double Pinehurst Station boardings, which notably has earned a turn-around at the station! ST shows many stations between 4,500 and 5,000 expected daily riders in 2040. Those numbers may be inflated — but this station doesn’t stand out as worse than others. Simply put, it’s demonstratively not “minor”.

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

        And it’s over a mile from the next closest light rail stations at Mt Baker and Beacon Hill. So it’s unreasonable to say that these stations duplicate the station location.

        And it is just 6/10 of a mile from 23rd and Jackson. It’s almost within a reasonable walking distance to the heart of the CD.

        And the thousands of apartments opening around the station is more than you’ll find at the two Shoreline Stations combined.

        Sure it’s in a freeway median, but the median effect is softened by having a park as a freeway lid literally right across the street from the station.

        There may not be anything you want to go to near the station, but that’s not a good enough reason to call it “minor”. You should make conclusions like that only after looking at data.

      23. It’s so odd that that there’s a long thread arguing how far the bus bridge stop is from Judkins station, when ST hasn’t announced the routing for an I-90 bus bridge.

      24. @Al S,

        There is no bus turnaround at Pinehurst Station. And no bus layover space either. Nor any parking.

      25. “So ST could run a Link Shuttle like they are doing very successfully right now in [downtown] Seattle.”

        Define very successfully. Yesterday I took Link from Westlake to Roosevelt in a 12-minute period. The display said the next train was in 15 minutes and the following trains were 20-25 minutes apart. (The downtown train is supposed to be every 25-30 minutes, not the northern segment.) Then the display changed and said the next train would come in 8 minutes, which it did. The following train was 20 minutes, and the one after that 12 minutes. Today there was an alert saying the next-arrival displays may not be accurate.

        When I got on the return trip at Roosevelt, there was a woman with limited English saying she wanted to go to the airport. Two of us explained she was on the right train, but due to construction she’d have to get off at Westlake, go around to the other platform, take it south to Stadium, and transfer again to a train to SeaTac. I didn’t have the heart to tell her she might have to wait 25-30 minutes at Westlake. I just told her it the trip would take a while. She didn’t seem to be in a hurry, so I guess she wasn’t rushing for a flight. I thought about suggesting she transfer to the 124 downtown, but I was afraid she might get lost looking for the bus stop, and it’s “the worst bus stop in Seattle” in my opinion.

        “Or they could just single track across the bridge and not even run a shuttle. It’s only approx a 1.5 min transit time.”

        What will frequency be though? When ST single-tracks part of the 1 Line, frequency goes down to 20 minutes.

        If there’s a disruption on the bridge, ST might terminate 2 Line trains at South Bellevue, and have a bus shuttle between CID and South Bellevue, skipping Judkins Park.

      26. @Mike Orr,

        “ What will frequency be though?”

        The frequency should be near normal. The crossovers are only about 1.4 miles apart, and there are no intervening stations or surface crossings like what ST has to deal with elsewhere when they single track.

        Of course they might need to go slower near any MOW type equipment or personnel, but that is all event specific.

        The hard part isn’t actually single tracking on the bridge. It’s single tracking on the bridge while maintaining interlining with the 1-Line between IDS and LCC.

      27. Lazarus makes a good point about nearby crossovers. Crossovers will be closer together than the stations will be. The tag line: Crossover spacing matters!

        The whole reason for the shuttle train this week would have needless had a crossover been built inside the DSTT.

        With close crossovers and a single track closure, it’s much more efficient to just alternate directions (holding trains) on the same single track than to for make riders to change to a single track shuttle train like what is running this week. The trip between Mercer Island and Judkins Park will take at least 5 minutes each way, while a 1.4 single track segment would clear in well less than 3 minutes each way. So unless ST has to fully shut down the bridge a single track is the way to go.

        It things get too tight on time, ST could simply run two trains in tandem in each direction on the single track segment before reversing the track direction.

        The 1 Line interfacing is a very short-term problem. There are operational tricks to remedy that. Already, the 1 Line train arrivals northbound are not exact because of the MLK travel time uncertainty. And there are extra siding tracks on both lines just south of IDS (south of Stadium on 1 Line) if a train needs to be held or maybe even dropped to ease bunching.

        And if a train gets too crowded northbound out of Downtown, the first packed train can be turned into an “instant express train” that doesn’t stop until a place like Northgate and riders not going that far would have to hop off and wait for the next train, easing the crowding. I witnessed this technique in Chicago. Keep in mind that northbound riders in Downtown Seattle won’t care whether it’s a 1 or 2 Line train. They will just take the next train that comes.

        In a pinch, ST could even turn a 1 Line train into a 2 Line train for the remainder of the day (or vice versa) — and wait until overnight to return them to the train to the home OMF.

        Unlike MLK there is no need to worry about traffic collisions blocking both tracks.

        So, outside of rare times when both tracks must be closed (like high winds), ST should be able to hobble along fine with a single track on the bridge and not need any shuttle — either bus or rail.

        I hope ST has the foresight to plan ahead for any track segment closure. They may have. If not, they need to create readily-available contingency action plans rather than to have something go wrong during a novice dispatcher’s shift (especially with a CEO with no experience in daily operations) and create a massive mess.

      28. It’s so odd that that there’s a long thread arguing how far the bus bridge stop is from Judkins station, when ST hasn’t announced the routing for an I-90 bus bridge.

        Not really, we speculate about all sorts of things. But I think it is fair to assume that there will be outage at some point. ST doesn’t always handle an outage the same way — it isn’t like a snow route (and even snow routes have different variations depending on how snowy it is). We may not know the plans until just a few days before the outage.

      29. @Al — Are you really claiming that Judkins Park Station is of the same caliber as CID or Downtown Bellevue? Seriously?

        You are also ignoring the main value of Judkins Park Station: It is a major bus intercept. Without it riders from south of the freeway would have to ride all the way to downtown before crossing the bridge (something people have had to do for years unfortunately). I want to be clear here: I am not suggesting an express that skips the station area. I am saying it can serve Rainier Avenue and the CID by just stopping on Rainier (one bus stop north of station). This means the bus intercept is just about as good.

        Again, in terms of serving the neighborhood it is also just about as good (even though it is quite a bit further north). If we could only build one station in the area and we had to choose between a station at Charles & Rainier or one below the freeway I think most would pick Charles. Obsessing over being as close to possible to a station that is an obviously inferior location is silly. Yes, some people who are used to walking from the train station will have to transfer. That is normal with an outage, because outages are temporary. Right now, as I write this, people are being forced to transfer when they used to just take the train and walk to their destination. So if someone lives here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CsHAynWvA6iwS3YQ9 (south of the station) they will probably transfer to the 7 or the 106 — and have less walking then they would with Link. This would be quite similar to the way ST handles every other outage (including the current one).

      30. I’ve seen LRV in Judkin Park 8 out of 10 times when I drove by that part of I-90 lately. If you drove on I-90 on a weekend night, there is almost 100% chance that you will see one hidden in the Mt Baker Tunnel.

        On the morning of April 11th, I saw one LRV idling on Mercer Island section of track near E Mercer Way. That was the only time I saw LRV between Judkin Park and S Bellevue. I think it is more likely that test train came from South Bellevue since there were still some minor activities going on the floating bridge.

    3. Why doesn’t someone email Sound Transit and ask them what the bus bridge routing will be when the lake bridge is closed to Link?

      1. I don’t know, but I think the amount of ink spilled here on the topic is a bit over the topic. The simplest option is for the bus bridge to go to International District Station along the I-90->Rainier->Dearborn->4th path, stopping somewhere near Judkins Park Station along the way. For a rare bridge closure situations, I think this option is sufficient, and avoids an awkward transfer for many riders that you’d get trying to turn the bus around at Judkins Park.

      2. The problem I see with all of this is: when the I-90 bridge is closed to traffic (Eg SeaFair) there won’t be buses either.

      4. It’s a given that, at times, the I-90 Link bridge will either entirely close to train traffic, or there will be a reduction in service, like single tracking, or a slow order. Reasons it may happen include: A train loses power on the bridge. High winds. A defect is discovered/something needs to be repaired, which could be a long-term process, and cause a long-term slow order. Luckily, there won’t be vehicle or pedestrian accidents to contend with.

  13. Are the left-side wheelchair ramps on the RapidRide G buses not actually motorized, or was the bus I rode today simply broken? The operator had to manually deploy and stow the ramp, which delayed our departure enough that the next bus pulled up to the stop the moment we left. On a normal bus route, this sort of delay would be ordinary enough that one would scarcely notice it – but with the quick tempo of the G line, it stands out as a problem.

  14. I’m moving this to a higher thread. John mentioned a report that has an intriguing idea (thanks for the link, John). It is on page thirty here. The basic idea is to make the ramps more of a ‘T’. This slows down the cars. That will likely happen, if nothing else. But they open up the possibility of allowing left turns from the ramp that goes from I-90 eastbound to southbound (Rainier). That would mean that you could get rid of the westbound I-90 to northbound Rainier ramp. That would make walking around there more pleasant. But it also opens up the possibility of extending the northbound bus lanes! Right now there are three northbound lanes under I-90 (two general purpose, one bus-lane). The bus lane ends where the sidewalk ends. The bus then merges with regular traffic and it becomes two lanes northbound for a very brief period before traffic from the freeway makes it three lanes again. If that ramp is removed then you could extend the bus lanes all the way to Charles. At that point the bus has to move into the left lane anyway. Traffic coming from the freeway would be a little more throttled (with the left turn light).

    The only drawback is that Rainier traffic (including the buses) would be delayed by that traffic light. It might not be worth it, but it would certainly be worth studying.

    1. The needed interchange redesign is a tricky chess game. That’s because a new feature of a likely busy station entrance gets introduced.

      There currently are no pedestrian crosswalks on Rainier north of the Rainier Station entrance until Charles Street. There is a new crosswalk recently added just south of the station entrance at the eastbound off-ramp — but drivers coming off the freeway making a left from the ramp may not see pedestrians in that new crosswalk until it’s too late.

      There are other station entrance issues too. Things like riders getting out of the station and realizing that they’re on the wrong side of Rainier. Or people waiting to be picked up by a ride or by Lyft/ Uber on the wrong side of the street (and Rainier only has bus lanes but not pickup zones).

      Bringing the loop offramp traffic to an intersection will make it possible to add a pedestrian crosswalk north of the station entrance. That helps with safety.

      It’s unfortunate that ST and the City and WSDOT didn’t work through the circulation issues a decade ago. The station opening has been delayed over two years to boot. Now we are just months from JPS opening and it’s only now that bigger ideas and issues are coming forth. There are also thousands of new apartments just opened or soon to open around the station, adding to pedestrian activity.

      In 2026 I wouldn’t be surprised to see this location suddenly vault to one of the places with the most for pedestrian accidents in Seattle. Maybe waiting will prove to be better in the long run because it’s hard for many to understand problems until they’re actually happening — and that can lead to better long-term solutions.

      1. There currently are no pedestrian crosswalks on Rainier north of the Rainier Station entrance until Charles Street.

        Yeah, that is one of the benefits of the plan. There would be a crossing at Bush Place, just north of both ramps (after they “T-up”). But the big thing is that the cars would be forced to slow down. I think that part of the plan will be implemented. I’m not sure if they will get rid of the ramp though (even though it would offer some benefits). That is the part of the plan that seems more controversial.

        It’s unfortunate that ST and the City and WSDOT didn’t work through the circulation issues a decade ago.

        Yes, but better late then never.

  15. If there’s going to be a sneak peek press tour for the DRLE, it should be happening in the next week.

    1. If there’s a press tour and one of us attends, there will be an article on it. So far I haven’t seen an invitation. I don’t understand why you’re so riled up about a sneak peek preview; opening day is soon enough and we’ll see it then.

      I’m thinking about an article to prepare for opening day. That may be part of the preview article or a different one depending on timing. I’d like to give you appropriate credit for inspiring this article. What would be the most appropriate way to acknowledge our brilliant star reporter and self-designated emperor of the comments section?

    2. What topics should a Redmond opening-day preparation article cover? So far I’ve got getting to the ceremony, and things to do in downtown Redmond. Are there any restaurants that are open for breakfast if people arrive early? Any other topics worth covering?

    3. I think an opening day post should be light on the ceremonies and festivities. Instead, focus on the new extension itself. Write about the light rail ride. How are the crowds? Thoughts on the two stations/layout, etc. How close are the bus bays? Are buses using them yet? Thoughts on the station areas. Stuff like that.

  16. Re: WSDOT rail plan… are there any plans to improve the Point Defiance Bypass?

    I know there was a big push for this revived route years ago but is actually pretty crappy with mostly single track, a bunch of grade crossings by the adjacent freeway and the infamous 30mph S-curve overpass at I-5 that doomed the first revenue train.

  17. What are the ridership estimates for East Link stations in the full 2 Line? How does Judkins Park compare to the Eastside stations? Could it be second highest after Bellevue Downtown?

    1. The latest comprehensive forecast that I’ve seen was on STB five years ago before Covid. That’s this post:

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

      Judkins Park is #5 of 12 stations. The biggest volumes are Bellevue Downtown (lots of transferring including Stride but also lots of destinations) and East Main (4 Line). #3 is Redmond Tech. #4 is Mercer Island is just slightly greater — again partly because of I-90 express bus transferring.

      Curiously, the 4 Line boarding forecasts are much higher for Issaquah than for Eastgate or Factoria.

      The forecast is obviously dated and the only updated data that I’ve seen are corridor specific to a published EIS document. It’s worth mentioning that the Avalon Station forecasted weekday boardings in the West Seattle FEIS are substantially lower than these forecasts from 2020 showed as an example.

      It does seem to me that ST staff increasingly doesn’t present forecasts as a topic unlike a decade ago, while the Board doesn’t want to know either. It’s lots easier to make emotionally-driven decisions about transit expansion if one ignores the ridership forecasts!

      2. It does seem rather odd. It’s probably caused by bus transfers.

        There is no explanation of the supporting bus network. So it’s possible that their model shifts bus transferring from Bellevue Downtown to Wilburton or East Main.

        But I would not expect East Main to be busier, even with 4 Line transferring added.

      3. Yeah, the numbers for East Main seem ridiculously high. Even for “current” levels (2014) they seem way too high. They state that if the system was built out *today* that East Main would get 4,800 riders and Bellevue Downtown would get 5,600. So no TOD — just all the trains (and buses) that are part of ST3 and East Main would be quite close to Bellevue Downtown.

        It must be based upon the assumption that people in Issaquah will transfer there (e. g. Eastgate to Redmond). That’s the only explanation that makes any sense given the level of development around each station (and the fact that Bellevue Downtown is a major transit hub). At the moment, the only really big building (or set of buildings) that are closer to East Main than Bellevue Downtown are the ones along 112th (that include the residential tower) and those didn’t even exist until last year.

        The optimism may also be based on how the data was entered. If the station was at 112th & Main you would have more places nearby. But it’s not. The northernmost point is is basically at 112th & SE 2nd. This makes a difference when it comes to serving the area. It is about a 10 minute walk between the two stations if you walk along 112th. The dividing line is basically NE 2nd. Any north of there and it makes sense to use Bellevue Downtown. As you move west it favors Bellevue Downtown even more. That’s because the Downtown Bellevue platform is oriented east west while the East Main platform is north-south (and a bit south of Main). So now places along NE 2nd are actually closer to Bellevue Downtown (this versus this). That means the dividing line moves south of NE 2nd (to somewhere between Main and NE 2nd). There are some apartments along Main but not a lot until you get pretty far away from the station). Now you are walking over ten minutes to the station and at that point people start looking for alternatives (like driving, taking a bus, etc.) that don’t really favor East Main. Being a bit further south makes heading east a little worse as well. The other problem with heading east (on Main Street) is that there is so little there (and it takes a while to cross the freeway). Being further south does make it easier to access East Main Station from the south — there is just very little that direction.

        Then you have current ridership at the two stations and Bellevue Downtown has a lot more (over four times as many each month). Obviously both stations will get a lot more once they connect to Seattle. But the only explanation I can find for the really high East Main ridership is the planner’s belief that the connection to Issaquah Link will result in a lot of transfers there (instead of Bellevue Downtown) mixed in with edge cases that incorrectly favored East Main.

      4. I think some of it is the lack of considering slopes in the forecast models. They seem to think the world is flat.

        If Downtown Bellevue was completely flat the data could make a bit more sense. Of course it’s not. East Main is at the bottom of a hill. Downtown Bellevue station has entrances that exit both above and below the station platform so that station has more vertical functionality.

        Consider the situation where someone works in a tower between 2nd and 4th in Downtown Bellevue. On a flat map East Main Station may look just as close as Downtown Bellevue Station so that the model will send Seattle-bound riders to walk to and from East Main. Of course, in the real world a rider will avoid climbing and maybe also descending that hill as will choose the Downtown Bellevue station instead.

        I’m reminded of the surprisingly low ridership at the new Chinatown Station in San Francisco. It’s so deep — and the transfer at Union Square just one station away is so much of a hassle — that riders just prefer buses or even walking. To me, it’s a core problem of DSTT2 which will be almost three times deeper than the current Downtown Link tunnel.

        Simply put, elevation matters. It’s why I gripe when ST does things like cut escalators and elevators from station designs or doesn’t explain how deep proposed stations will really be to the public. The journeys for a future rider using the planned DSTT2 at Pioneer Square or a Westlake l is cumbersome (SODO could be designed to be easier too) — especially when transferring from another rail line.

      5. To me, it’s a core problem of DSTT2 which will be almost three times deeper than the current Downtown Link tunnel.

        I agree. Folks generally focus on the distance to a station but it really comes down to walking distance. This varies by person and also by service. People will walk further for better service (like Link). But walking distance also includes hills as well as the distance from the platform to the street. Aesthetics also play a part. People are more likely to walk to a stop if the walk is pleasant. Again this varies by person but I don’t think there will be many walking across the freeway on Main to get to the station simply because the walk is so unpleasant.

    2. I would take all ridership estimates with a huge grain of salt. It is very difficult to predict ridership and ST does not have a great record. Part of the problem is that a different agency (Metro) runs most of the buses. Routing decisions and levels of service can have a huge impact on ridership. With all that in mind, here are some numbers I found: https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Daily_Boardings.pdf

      Dan Ryan copied these numbers (I’m not sure from where). The estimates for current year (2014) are based upon the assumption that the entire system was built out. This explains why the ridership for Westlake (for example) is so high (it includes people heading from Westlake to Everett, Tacoma and Bellevue).

      To answer your question, of the new stations they expect Downtown Bellevue to get the most riders in the short and long run. East Main and Mercer Island are a surprising second and third (at least surprising to me). Redmond Tech is expected to be fourth in the short run and then pass Mercer Island for third by 2040. Judkins Park is expected to be middle of the pack in the short and long term.

      But those are for the new stations. It is quite likely that the stations that perform the best with Line 2 are already part of Line 1. I don’t think you are going to get high ridership on the East Side without a lot of people going downtown. Those stations also have riders going north as well. Thus even on the 2 Line I expect the downtown stations to do really well. I also think Judkins Park will perform better than East Main in the short run (and a big reason for that is the 7).

      1. Sorry about the double comment. Al is saying pretty much the same thing as me and he is referencing the same source. I started my comment, got delayed and then just now finished it.

  19. Future Sunday Movies: I’m down to the last two in the backlog. After that I’ll look through City Nerd, City Beautiful, RMTransit, Not Just Bikes, and Gemini Walk & Talk for anything interesting in the past couple years we haven’t published. Does anybody have suggestions for other channels to monitor, or specific video recommendations? I know there are some channels covering local rides or Eastside rides, but I don’t remember their names or which ones are recommendation-worthy.

    2. Classy Whale is a YouTube channel covering public transit around the U.S., and a day ago they posted a video about Link. “Seattle’s Light Rail is Too Good.”

      https://youtu.be/FWeMvBEbok4

      I also recommend the local YouTube channel Best Side Cycling. It’s most about cycling, but some videos are also about transit, like the recent video “How Seattle Improved this Street for Bikes and Buses – Tour of Eastlake Layover Facility Project.”

      https://youtu.be/vMq7CWKxw_0

  20. The Issaquah link proposal seems interesting.

    But, why does the Issaquah link not go through South Bellevue and run parallel to the 2 line?

    It’d be much easier to transfer and get to Seattle for riders from Eastgate/Issaquah.

    There is no station planned on the other corridor it is taking east of 405…

    Also, the new proposals for 111 and 203 would terminate at South Bellevue Station, so commuters into Bellevue downtown would appreciate higher frequency.

    1. If the 2 Line, 4 Line and Stride BRT (Burien-Bellevue) all go to South Bellevue, it’d be a logical intersection to get between:

      Burien, Renton, Issaquah, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Seattle would be efficiently connected under a high speed transit spine.

      Right now you’re forced to go to Bellevue TC and “turn around” if you’re coming in from the south (Renton Highlands, Newcastle) and want to go to Issaquah or Seattle.

      I understand there a local bus alternatives, but I feel like BRT and light rail should have a proper intersection point and South Bellevue better serves that purpose than Bellevue TC.

      1. I understand there a local bus alternatives, but I feel like BRT and light rail should have a proper intersection point and South Bellevue better serves that purpose than Bellevue TC.

        The main problem with that is that there is nothing there. You want your major transit hub to be an actual destination (not just someplace you wait). Someone from Renton headed to Seattle will just take the 101. Thus the main reason they would take a bus headed north is to get to Downtown Bellevue. It is by far the biggest destination on the East Side. It also sets them up for secondary destinations (via Link) in a very fast and efficient way (e. g. Renton to Redmond). If the Stride bus coming from Renton stopped at South Bellevue it would be a big delay for the vast majority of riders.

        Now consider someone going from Eastgate to Seattle. It is considerably faster to take an express to Mercer Island. Going to South Bellevue isn’t terrible but it is still slower (especially when there is traffic). This puts buses in Eastgate (and in turn Issaquah) in the same position as buses from Renton. You need to run a different bus for those headed to Downtown Bellevue versus those headed to Seattle.

        That has always been an issue with East Link. There is no ideal transfer point. It depends on where you are coming from and where you are headed. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this (it doesn’t mean ST should have spent a lot of money fixing it). But it does mean that compromises have to be made. You either run a bunch of extra buses or live with some backtracking. This is common and not the end of the world.

        Backtracking can be mitigated by adding (and using) freeway stations. For example, assume for a second that ST runs an express bus from Woodinville to the UW. It would stop at the various freeway stations along the way (starting at the SR 522/405 interchange station). Now someone from Lynnwood can get to Woodinville with an easy transfer that involves minimal backtracking. Someone from Canyon Park can get to the UW with a transfer at Totem Lake. It is an actual network while still providing one-seat trips to large destinations (the UW or Downtown Bellevue).

        In this case though the biggest weakness is probably not a lack of freeway stations but HOV-to-HOV connections. This goes back to Eastgate. Because Eastgate is right next to Bellevue College it really is a destination. The problem is that buses have no easy way of connecting to the HOV lanes either north or south. Thus a bus from Eastgate can’t run express to Downtown Bellevue or Renton. If we are going to spend hundreds of millions on regional transit improvements this is where I would start (before adding more freeway stations).

        First thing I would build is the Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue HOV connection. This would allow a bus to run express to Downtown Bellevue while serving Eastgate. Riders from Eastgate and Issaquah would save quite a bit of time on their trip.

        At that point you could build a 405 freeway station north of 405 but closer to it. That would allow riders from the Stride bus (coming from Renton) to transfer to this express coming (heading to Eastgate and Issaquah). I’m not sure it would be worth it though. I think we might just live with the backtracking.

      2. I’d have the Eastgate-Issaquah line deviate from the center of the I-90 corridor to actually serve destinations in the corridor so people actually use the line… hit Factoria Mall and T-Mobile HQ with a station, hit Eastgate TC and Bellevue College (but actually run north of I-90 ROW to avoid the freeway in the walkshed and get closer to BC campus), also hit the empty Eastgate office parks to the east with a second Eastgate station and enable them to be redeveloped as TOD then resume its planned route in the center of I-90 to Issaquah. And of course tie in at South Bellevue so riders aren’t penalized for traveling Issaquah/Eastgate to Seattle.

      3. I like Ponchos plan to hit some real transit destinations without blind loyalty to freeway median access and access to transfers at South Bellevue. As a resident of Issaquah I don’t see any benefit to riding to East Main Station for a transfer to Seattle, one stated reason to do this is a less complicated structural work to provide the switches just south of the S Bellevue Station, the East Main scenario doesn’t seem to make such a tie in any better, I would imagine a lot of closures to The 2 Line for either tie in scenario. There is even a nice existing crossover south of S. Bellevue Station that can could provide the starting point for the 4-Line junction. https://maps.app.goo.gl/88FLcQVc1q3HmP478?g_st=i&utm_campaign=ac-im

        As far as the median of I-90 near I-405 it looks like it is disappearing with the current construction going on so a nice elevated swing of an elevated routing south of the interchange would provide a nice station in the midst of Factoria.

      4. If you are going to build greenfield Link ROW, then yes Issaquah Link should follow what ST (mostly) did with FW Link, leveraging the freeway ROW when cheap but place stations away from the freeway, but that assumes a large capital budget.

    2. The Metro restructure is not a proposal: it got final approval by the county council so the routes are definite. We covered it March 20.

      ST went back and forth on having the 4 Line serve South Bellevue, The decision against was probably because of travel time to Bellevue and crossing the environmentally-sensitive Mercer Slough.

      1. Despite Sound Transit taking 15-20 years to “study” and plan a single line of rail, they seem to make fixed decisions early on. We’ll always be behind the rest of the world when it comes to transit. They don’t seem to care about making transit that people would use. That continues to fuel car dependency. I can drive an EV, and save so much time and money, why should I ride Sound Transit? They’re taking away bus routes and not adequately serving the region.

      2. Despite Sound Transit taking 15-20 years to “study” and plan a single line of rail, they seem to make fixed decisions early on.

        Mike commented below but I’ll offer my 2 cents here. As Mike put it, a lot of it is politics. But it is also the way the board is structured. They are fixated on the idea of a “spine” — light rail from Tacoma to Everett. They also have subarea equity. This means that every area gets taxed at the same rate and (in general) that money stays within that that area. With ST3 the board really wanted to complete the spine. This is expensive — especially for those areas. Thus the tax rate has to be fairly high. East King has to play along. It is going to be taxed pretty heavily even though the main part of their rail system (East Link) is pretty much done. They could have spent a lot on bus service but instead the focus was on capital projects (some for buses, a lot for rail).

        The timing is an issue. When it passed it meant that bonds would be issued and Sound Transit could build everything. But they can’t build it all at once. There is a limit to how much debt they can occur. So projects are dated based on size and priority. So even projects that require no planning at all (e. g. money given to Metro to run buses more often) could be placed in the distant future. In the case of the East Side they have projects that are the focus now (e. g. Downtown Redmond East Link extension) and projects that are meant for the distant future (Issaquah Link). But because of how the proposal is worded, they had to specify everything in advance. They couldn’t (or at least they didn’t) go to voters and say “give us a bunch of money, we will figure out what to build later”. Given the very long timeline, that would have been a better approach.

        So they are committed to Issaquah Link even though it won’t be built for years and is a dubious project to begin with.

    3. why does the Issaquah link not go through South Bellevue and run parallel to the 2 line?

      Check out the comments up above. Basically it would have been too expensive.

  21. “Despite Sound Transit taking 15-20 years to “study” and plan a single line of rail, they seem to make fixed decisions early on. We’ll always be behind the rest of the world when it comes to transit.”

    That’s the million-dollar question. The Link network is based on 1990s thinking about rail. That in turn was based on 1980s American light rail, plus a few Pugetopolis-specific factors. (The existing DSTT, existing P&Rs at freeway exits at Northgate/145th/Lynnwood, and the 60-mile Everett-Tacoma goal.)

    Light rail emerged in the 1970s as cities modernized their streetcar networks or retrofitted the rail they’d torn out decades earlier. German cities went mostly with exclusive-lane trams with downtown tunnels. A few American cities did the same without the downtown tunnel (MAX, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento). That was the model for Link. Link would use the existing DSTT and extend it to the U-District because of the hills and Ship Canal, but would otherwise be mostly surface to safe capital costs. ST chose light rail technology because its surface-compatible. It never reconciled this with its 60-mile Spine goal, where the travel time of 35 mph street-running trains would become significant. After Rainier Valley and SODO went through design, the remaining segments for one reason or another got elevated/underground, undermining the reason for light rail technology in the first place. But ST refuses to consider other technologies, just at it won’t switch to open-gangway trains that would add 20% capacity essentially for free. It prefers sticking with light rail even in new lines, sticking to dual-cab cars for maintenance interchangeability, and deferring to stakeholders over non-transit concerns even when it hinders passengers’ mobility.

    This gets into the political structure, and what cities/counties and many voters expect. Cities/counties, major institutions, and neighborhood groups have more influence and veto power over alignment decisions than non-American cities have, and a larger percentage of them want either (A) trains on the freeway so they don’t have to drive in freeway congestion, or (B) trains away from them because of aesthetics or construction disruption. They don’t understand what transit is like if it’s your primary form of transportation, so they don’t understand the usability issues between light rail, heavy rail, BRT, gondolas, automated trains, etc in particular corridors or anywhere. This lack of experience and knowledge, and the drive to make major transit decisions based on non-transit issues and stakeholders, is why Link is the way it is and why it’s unlikely to change.

    The Issaquah line is ultimately because the mayor of Issaquah was on the ST board in the 2010s and championed it for years. The reason exurban cities want light rail is they don’t want to be left out of the prosperity cycle: employers and affluent residents tend to choose cities that have rail even if they don’t use it or aren’t conscious they are doing so. That’s why Issaquah, Lynnwood, Everett, Tacoma, and Federal Way are so keen on Link.

    There are some other promising alternatives: frequent BRT to Issaquah and beyond Lynnwood and Federal Way. A two-level network with faster rail to Everett and Tacoma and more city lines in Seattle (without better train-to-train transfers than ST is proposing). Martin’s suggestions for an Issaquah city gondola across I-90, or a Bellevue College-Bellevue gondola. There are doubtless other possibilities too. But the ST board and the cities/counties won’t consider them. Balducci did suggest replacing WS/BLE with an automated line, but the rest of the board rejected it without consideration.

    “I think transit oriented development and light rail in a place like Issaquah is fundamentally wrong.”

    This gets into what “transit-oriented development” means. There are multiple meanings used by different people, and it causes confusion even in this blog’s comments. The core of transit-oriented development is pointing your front door toward the transit stop and having the shortest walking path to it. Any building can do this regardless of its density. Then you want at least some of the housing to be attached/multifamily to allow more people to live near a frequent transit stop. And you want corner stores or walkable retail clusters so that residents can do many of their everyday needs on foot. This is all common sense, and how all neighborhoods were designed before the rise of cars.

    TOD does not have to be large, boxy, expensive, high-density, modernist, ugly, or devoid of vegetation. Those are all secondary design choices. What’s happening in the US is a bifurcation between (A) single-family (including its relaxed ADU/4-plex forms), and (B) large boxy expensive buildings. That’s because of zoning: 70+% of the land is restricted to “A”, so “B” has to squeeze into the 30% where it’s allowed. The big Wall Street money crowds out smaller developments in the 30%. Additional regulations like parking minimums, FAR maximums, multiple stairwells, and large elevators force buildings to be larger and boxier than they’d otherwise be.

    That’s where the whole “missing middle” concepts comes in. That’s everything down to duplexes and row houses and up to small (4-8 unit) apartment buildings, like the ones remaining from the 1950s.

    So Issaquah should absolutely have TOD, but you have to understand what TOD is. All Issaquah neighborhoods should be walkable, and there should be some kind of frequent transit throughout the city. It can be walkable low-ish density if desired, like the “streetcar suburbs” were or parts of Paris and Boston still are. Issaquah could start with the inner neighborhoods and commercial areas, and work out from there, and maybe skip the outermost edges (e.g., isolated houses on Squak Mountain).

  22. We should have 311/256 stop at South Kirkland P&R on the way to Seattle. And maybe use the freeway station at Houghton. Have express buses use Kirkland Freeway Ststions.
    @asdf2

    1. I think it is a given that the future 256 will stop at the freeway stations, but I don’t think it should be diverted from the freeway to serve the park and ride. Riders going from Kirkland to downtown who want to ride the bus (instead of Link) can just transfer from the 255 to the 256 at one of the freeway stations. Riders can also use the same combination to get from Woodinville to Kirkland by going the other direction on the 255. Riders can also transfer to the 255 at Totem Lake. Eventually they will build the big HOV overpass at 85th and riders can transfer to the 250 from there.

      I think the bigger issue is why they even have a 256. Why run a bus every half hour (peak only) to downtown from SR 520? Similar buses have failed and they tend to fail for the same reason. There isn’t enough ridership to justify a lot of frequency. Without a lot of frequency people find alternatives. So even though I could see folks taking a different bus from Redmond or Kirkland and transferring to this bus as a fast way to get downtown it just doesn’t work if it runs every half hour. Riders might as well just ride that first bus to the UW (where all the other buses are headed) and then transfer to Link. Yes, the transfer is time consuming but at least there is a lot less waiting, especially during peak (the only time the future 256 will run). If there was no Link or if we had a much more robust transit system then I could see it. But since we don’t I think it will be another in a long line of similar buses that gets weak ridership and eventually gets canned.

Comments are closed.