Redmond Link Extension:

Local Transportation:

Other Transportation:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

117 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: “Deciding To See””

    1. Maybe it’s not news to others but the East Link project now shows a Jan 16, 2026 launch in the schedule. First time I have seen that date

      1. I noticed that in the latest progress report.

        Given how many times the date has been moved and given how testing has not begun across the bridge (over two miles) — not even a vehicle dead tow test — and given how delays have hit other rail transit projects during testing, I’m not going to believe the beginning of revenue service date yet.

        I was actually expecting the new date to be pushed to February if not March.

      2. The Starter Line had internal planning dates like this that were mentioned in committee reports but not announced. They don’t announce it until they’re more sure it will be met.

      3. That is not the latest date, it is only the latest published date. Apparently there has been another delay. Thanks Dow!

        But I don’t know why they need 8 months of testing anyhow. It’s normally 6. So maybe, maybe, just maybe things will improve.

        But I wouldn’t bet on it.

    1. Very good! I wonder if ST considering letting passengers board the 2 Line in Seattle during pre-revenue testing of the “full” 2 line.

      1. I made a similar comment on the other thread. It sets the stage for 2 Line trains to operate in-service before Lake Washington cross-lake service begins.

        It makes it look like 2 Line is already operating in Seattle, actually.

      2. It makes it look like 2 Line is already operating in Seattle, actually.

        Good point. I don’t see any harm. Some may interpret it that way and find that they never catch the 2 Line. But it keeps people on their toes as eventually some riders will have to know which train they are on. It was interesting reading the Reddit comments about that as plenty of people had no idea (they thought East Link was just going to end downtown).

      3. It looks from the pictures that the map has the unopen sections covered with stickers, and this is just what worked in terms of making sure that nothing useful was obscured; I wouldn’t draw any inferences from this about STs intentions for access to trains.

        It is attractive to suggest that test trains could run in service between Lynwood and the International District. However, I’m not really convinced that clearing trains at IDC could be reliably completed quickly enough to be consistent with reliable operation of the 1 line. Clearing trains at Judkins Park would effectively require actually opening the station, at least in terms of ensuring all required testing of systems and safety are complete.

      4. @ William A:

        I don’t see a problem. Agencies clear trains often in other cities quickly. Most riders are told before the last train station that the service won’t go further. And many will read the sign knowing the train won’t go further. Finally, when riders are told that it’s the last station most willingly get off the train.

        At most, ST will have to add staff at IDS to help clear every other train. Maybe the clearing process could occasionally delay the next train by a minute or two at worst (like due to a belligerent rider); time that can easily gained back since that next train will be 1 Line so they won’t need to clear the train nor reverse.

        Granted that they only have 4 minutes but I’ve never see any rail transit system that needed a full 4 minutes to clear most trains.

        Once the 2 Line train clears it won’t be reversed at the station . Trains in simulation must cross the Lake and will go back into service in South Bellevue. So clearing a train at IDS that’s continuing onward is much less involved that a typical ST end station because train reversal won’t be needed..

      5. ST cleared the trains at Westlake and Northgate when it was testing U-Link and Lynnwood Link, so it could do the same at Intl Dist.

      6. Westlake and Northgate were terminus at the time. Riders had to exit the train whether or not the train was going to travel onwards for testing. If Seattle wanted to test Line 2, opening Judkins Park and terminating there will be both more intuitive for riders and better for operations. Clearing half the trains at ID will be chaos.

    2. I’m surprised they drew it like that. It seems kind of odd to have it looping around. I would have it stacked over or under the other line (and move the legend to the left).

      1. The layout is generally fine to me.

        Admittedly, I’ve always felt that Link diagrams should have a big “C” for the DSTT or Downtown portion as a reference motif to orient the riders. That would mean that the diagonal would be a semi-circle showing both 1 and 2 lines, and the South King branch stations would be listed across the top in an line towards the right even with the Eastside branch line towards the left. That would put the legend at the lower right. A variation to that would be to put Downtown stations listed on the diagonal segment.

        The reference to Downtown Seattle seems lame with the extra wording added. I would have also shaded where Downtown is.

        Finally, I wonder if the major water features should appear as reference features on the line diagrams. Diagrams for many systems like BART, WMATA, and NYC show generalized major water body locations to help orient the map reader. The major water features are shown in the bigger ST systems diagrams. However adding that may just make these diagrams look more cluttered.

      2. I don’t mind the loop around because that’s what the train does, and north is consistently north between the two lines.. Otherwise you have the spectacle of one line going to Angle Lake and the other to Redmond as if they’re the same direction. A T-shaped orientation wouldn’t fit above the door.

      3. A T-shaped orientation wouldn’t fit above the door.

        Yeah, I get that. And I get that the loop around is slightly more geographically correct. But on a diagram none of that really matters. There is no compass on that map because a compass wouldn’t make sense. Yes, for the most part the 1 line from Angle Lake heads north. Likewise the 2 line from Redmond heads mostly west and then north. But a flattened diagram like that can’t possible represent that. If anything the looping (which seems unusual) seems to be trying to do that, and it really can’t. If you interpret the loop as anything other than finding space on the map to put the East Link stations it doesn’t make sense.

        Splitting off in the manner I suggested just seems more intuitive. You clearly aren’t trying to represent direction in any way. You are just listing the set of stations and their order. It also seems easier to just read it in one direction if you are on the 2 Line instead of reading left to right and then reversing.

        OK, I know this is a quibble worse than the arguments over station names (it doesn’t really matter). I just think it was kind of a weird choice.

      4. It’s quite useful to have the diagram loosely oriented North-South. Even station announcements reference the “southbound platform” and “northbound platform”.

        I just wonder how they will be able to fit the rest of the extensions including the 3 and 4 lines onto these diagrams…

      5. I wonder if the major water features should appear as reference features on the line diagrams.

        I think the station situation complicates that. You have to have a gap between CID and Judkins Park (as the lines split). There would be space there to add something. But of course the crossing of the lake comes later. Making matters weirding is that Mercer Island is in the middle of the lake (it is an island after all) so the diagram would basically surround it.

        The reference to Downtown Seattle seems lame with the extra wording added. I would have also shaded where Downtown is.

        I have no problem with that. But again that is where I could see the value in branching the 2 line below the 1 line. There is plenty of space below (since you have four symbols stacked underneath each other at CID). Have the blue line go down then start listing the East Link stations below everything. Then slide the whole thing up and move the legend to bottom left. It isn’t like there isn’t space. I could get this design if the there were more stations on Line Two than Line One. But as it turns out it is the opposite. So if they were running out of width it would make sense for the 1 Line to reverse directions instead of what they have.

      6. The NYC MTA map does a good job including bodies of water, distorting them to fit on a map while also stay legible enough to figure out what is the East River vs Hudson, and the London Underground map has the Thames. But Seattle as an isthmus isn’t as universally known as Manhattan as a island, so I’m not sure including Lake Washington is that important, particularly as most people these days will be using a smart phone to navigate.

      7. The NYC MTA map does a good job including bodies of water

        Yeah, but those are maps. They are distorted but still maps. This is a diagram. It is more like the diagrams they use for single lines (https://forums.dovetailgames.com/threads/nyc-subway-b-d-trains-6-ave-express.31451/). That doesn’t mean they couldn’t add symbols for water there but there is no real attempt at representing what the line is doing in the real world. In contrast this is a map of the same line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%28New_York_City_Subway_service%29#/media/File:NYCS_map_D.svg

      8. I think showing the line as bending northward is much more intuitive to most people. It is, fundamentally, a map of station locations relative to each other despite ignoring geospatial realities beyond the order of the stations.

        If the Downtown Redmond terminus were mapped next to Federal Way, riders with a minimal sense of geography might be confused and think they’re heading south in some sort of parallel with the 1 Line, instead of heading north/east as the 2 line does in reality.

      9. @ Delta:

        Because 2 Line goes in all four directions at some point, ST should no longer use “northbound” and “southbound” ever again. Thankfully, ST has been gradually removing the directional reference. (All 2 Line trains run “northbound” from Mercer Island.)

        I think I now only hear it in audio references — and it’s confusing to have an audio directional announcement when there is no corresponding visual wording about direction. (“Which one is the southbound platform on the announcement? There’s no sign telling me!”)

        It would help if ST would add “Downtown Seattle” in its directional signage. If a train leaves Shoreline headed to Redmond, the rider may think it’s not headed through Downtown Seattle, for example. Visitors also don’t know which direction each of our dozens of suburbs are. Adding an airplane symbol for the SeaTac direction would also be good.

        Some systems use “inbound” and “outbound”. But that’s also confusing to use with Link.

        All East Bay BART trains simply say “San Francisco” in addition to the end station name. ST should be doing the same with “Downtown Seattle”.

        Wayfinfing is as much of an art as it is a science. But it should never be confusing.

      10. The only place I’ve encountered “northobound” and “southbound” is in the audio announcements.

        Another thing will happen when 2 Line trains at Lynnwood say “Downtown Redmond”. Or “Dwntn Redmond” as the on-board display did on Saturday. “Downtown” connotes Downtown Seattle. Why couldn’t the station just be “Redmond” or “Redmond Downtown”? Or “Redmond City Center” like Lynnwood. At least in the north end it will go to downtown Seattle on the way. I hope nobody passes on a Federal Way train because they don’t realize it goes to downtown Seattle too. And maybe “Dwntn” is obscure enough that people won’t read it as downtown; it could be a city with a Welsh name. Or a Native American name for all they know.

      11. Mike, it’s Downtown Redmond because as the Urbanist noted in their reporting, Redmond established a “Downtown” plan in 1993 setting the stage for the current mid-rise development.

        Planners and politicians are really big about neighborhood names.

      12. @ Mike:

        I don’t think using “Downtown” is a redundancy problem as long as it’s stated as “Downtown Seattle”. After all, BART has San Bruno, San Leandro, North San Jose and South San Francisco stations and it doesn’t confuse riders.

      13. I suppose they have to call it Downtown Redmond to distinguish it from all the other stations in Redmond where trains might terminate. Right now, they’ve switched from a termination at Redmond Tech to Redmond Downtown.

        But I imagine they could just go with “Redmond” at some point.

      14. “it’s Downtown Redmond because as the Urbanist noted in their reporting, Redmond established a “Downtown” plan in 1993 setting the stage for the current mid-rise development. ”

        That’s a lame excuse. Every city center is its downtown by definition, regardless of whether it has an urban growth center named “Downtown”. “Downtown Redmond” just sounds pretentious or wanting to make Redmond look bigger and better than all the other cities. “Redmond Downtown” would at least put “Redmond” first. The only thing in front of the city name should be something like “North” or “South”, like “Hayward” and “South Hayward”.

      15. “… “Downtown Redmond” just sounds pretentious or wanting to make Redmond look bigger and better than all the other cities.”

        At least “Downtown” is succinct. It’s just overused so it’s in several station names.

        Given the surroundings, the term Federal Way Downtown is more warped to me. If that area is called a Downtown then any commercial strip can be called one.

        The overly pretentious award for a Link station name from me goes to “Lynnwood City Center”. And it’s not even a central point in any district as Scriber Creek wetlands and I-5 occupy two sides.

      16. If they want to be called Downtown Redmond Station, I think we should be respectful and use the name they wish to be called.

      17. I don’t think “Downtown Redmond” is a bad name. Sure, it is a stretch to call that area downtown but with another station called “Redmond Tech” it helps avoid confusion. I could see calling it just “Redmond” with the implication that a name without a modifier is the main thing (“Saint Louis” versus “East Saint Louis”) but it doesn’t seem bad at all.

        In contrast “Lynnwood City Center” is too verbose and unnecessary. It is the only station with the word “Lynnwood” in it. Just call it “Lynnwood”. If and when other stations are added they won’t have names with the word “Lynnwood” (even if they are in Lynnwood). I get the marketing but having just one word accomplishes the same thing. Short and sweet. There it is folks, in all its glory: Lynnwood!

      18. “Lynnwood City Center”. And it’s not even a central point in any district as Scriber Creek wetlands and I-5 occupy two sides.”

        Scriber Lake Park is a potential regional destination. The only general-purpose parks within an easy walk of Link stations I can think of are Marymoor, Ravenna, and Scriber Lake. The park has been partly closed for renovation so that has depressed visits. Lynnwood can make it more attractive for more people with the right management, and that would have spillover effects to people spending more money at businesses in the neighborhood.

      19. Some of LA Metro Rail station names: Downtown Long Beach. Downtown Santa Monica. Downtown Inglewood.

      20. “I’m surprised they drew it like that. It seems kind of odd to have it looping around. I would have it stacked over or under the other line”

        If you stack in the other direction, then there’s no good way to add the new 520 bus(es) to it, should they wish to do so at some point.

      21. “Lynnwood Center” would have been better (more succinct). However, ST kind of stacked the deck in the naming process with limited choices.

        If there is a “city center” in Lynnwood, is there a “country center” elsewhere?

      22. @Mike regarding parks near link stations

        Some of my favorite parks near Link stations:
        Angle Lake – Angle Lake park, which has a nice public beach
        Capitol Hill – Cal Anderson park, which is surprisingly hard to give directions to a non-local traveling via Link “no not that south exit, the other south exit”
        UW – not technically a park since it’s part of campus, but between the station entrance and Montlake bridge there are trails which take you down to Montlake cut, Portage Bay, and a little UW boathouse where you can rent kayaks to explore the arboretum by water!
        Beacon Hill – Jefferson Park – easily one of my top 50 parks in Seattle
        Judkins Park – self explanatory
        Mercer Island – Luther Burbank park, which has a lake slightly bigger than Angle Lake
        South Bellevue – Mercer Slough – not sure if this is technically a park but it sure feels like one
        Pinehurst/Shoreline south – Jackson Park – here I must rant.

        It is a travesty that nothing has been done, that no plans are in the works, to better utilize this space. One of Seattle’s largest parks, wedged between two light rail stations and I5, yet hardly anybody uses it! It could be filled with a new mixed-use community, 20-story residential towers, library, coffee shops and yoga studios with an expansive urban park as its centerpeice. What’s that you say, there’s a Seattle law preventing the city from reducing it’s park acreage? Don’t the new parks we build qualify as a trade-off?
        Even if it must remain a park, let it be a better one! A golf course is one step above a parking lot in terms of environmental benefits, or maybe even a step below*. How many daily visitors does this park even get, like 100? That number could be multiplied 10-fold overnight by removing the fence and letting people roam free over the greens! Free of charge and free of fences! Right now the denizens of North Seattle are anguished by the removal of a 100-year old sequoia tree at Green Lake. Well, take one of those stupid golf holes and plant a whole grove of sequoias and let future generations marvel at its wonders! Take a hole to rewild Thornton Creek and let the beavers dam it and transform it and build an environmental education center there! Take a hole and build playgrounds, pickleball courts, an ampitheater and a soccer field! Jackson Park currently has 27 holes over 160 acres. Even just reducing that to 18 holes on 100 acres gives 60 acres to do anything better with. For comparison, Volunteer Park is only 48 acres and hosts multiple lawns, walking trails, tennis courts, duck ponds, a conservatory, reservoir, playground, spray park, observation tower, dahlia garden, amphitheater, and an art museum. Leaving Jackson Park as just a fenced-up golf course is malpractice.

        *https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/golf-course-living-linked-to-higher-parkinsons-risk/

      23. I forgot about Cal Anderson. It’s my favorite park because it’s the closest we have to New York’s Central Park: easy to walk to, a lot of people there, the sports facilities well utilized.

        I didn’t include Jackson Park because it’s relevant only to golfers (a single sport). The pathetic ped track around it next to a fence and the micro-woods is not worth traveling to.

        Jefferson Park seems further to walk to, and I was focusing on “easy walks” that wouldn’t be a deterrent. Scriber Lake has an extension path that gets almost to the station, and while I’m not sure if it qualifies as park-like (and much of the area has been disrupted by construction so it’s hard to assess), I gave it the benefit of the doubt.

        Angle Lake Park I also considered a little further, since it’s a RapidRide A station away.

        Luther Burbank Park is also a little further, and you walk in an arbitrary direction in a residential-only area that may be hard for outsiders to find.

        Still, these are all worth mentioning in a complete parks list, even if some have easier access than others. I’ve been compiling a list for a long time, which I posted a draft of earlier: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqnfoPxJdUMzHNd-ZURVnRcAi1k1rDB9MI1yRtzB0g0/edit?usp=sharing . It’s focused on “Parks Near Frequent Transit”, including RapidRide and other bus routes. My goal is to consult it when I’m deciding on which park to visit., and for other people coming from other areas. I haven’t updated it since 2004 so it doesn’t have 2 Line parks except in a future note.

      24. “there’s a Seattle law preventing the city from reducing it’s park acreage? Don’t the new parks we build qualify as a trade-off?”

        The same city council that would authorize a conversion could change the law.

        The city has noticed that the number of golfers has been falling, and course-maintenance revenue with it. I think the city has mused about reevaluating the golf courses and consolidating them into fewer ones, or at least it has been discussed here, but nothing has happened.

        I don’t golf so I can’t evaluate the quality of the courses from a golfer’s perspective, but I would keep Jefferson Park. It’s in the outer periphery of Link’s walkshed, it has those parking spaces in the Beacon Avenue median, and the multi-purpose park next to it is already there. I’d convert Jackson Park because it’s next to two Link stations, and West Seattle because it’s close to Avalon station. Interbay could be kept as a second golf course. The area is industrial and strip-mall now, and while it may grow with Ballard Link, it’s too speculative and far-off to imagine it could become even like Avalon.

    4. Is that two faint station icons I doth see around the “1” circle under the connection sticker? The outlines look like they’re popping out in relief, and there’s the faint words “Judkins” at the bottom right — seemingly without the “Park”.

      1. If you zoom in really close, I think “Park” is under there, it’s just harder to see than the other text.

      2. By clicking on the image and zooming in, I can make out “Judkins Park” under the words “Coming soon” and “Mercer Island” behind “Connection”

    5. I see no point no the stop numbers. Especially since they aren’t even unique.

      1. Yeah, I don’t get the point of displaying them. It seems like something that planners would know but the rest of us don’t really care about.

        If you view them as three digit numbers they are unique. 160 is Othello and 260 is Spring District. But I don’t know what we are supposed to do with these numbers. I can’t imagine them catching on. I don’t think anyone will ever say “Hey, I’m at station 45 can you pick me up?”

      2. The station numbers replaced the pictograms as an accessibility feature – someone without English can communicate where they are headed with others and coordinate with the diagram.

      3. OK, that’s right. I forgot. My apologies — they are a very important feature.

      4. Apparently there’s research behind them. ST went through a long process of identifying peer alternatives to the pictograms and came up with that. They may be more common in Asia than in the west.

        The complete number is the 3-digit number that includes the line, so 148 and 248 are the same station but 161 and 261 are different stations. You’re supposed to start with your line number, not other lines’ numbers which are irrelevant to you.

        This map has the numbers in a vertical orientation, which seems like a poor choice, because it disassociates the first digit with the other two digits, and leads to complaints like Cam’s. Previous maps had them horizontally so they read “161”. ST should do this here too. It could put 148 in the green line and 248 in the blue line, and have an oval around both of them to tie them together.

      5. Station numbers are useful on TriMet because you can shortcut to the arrival information using them.

        Unfortunately, One Bus Away doesn’t seem to have this feature.

        And naturally, TiMet doesn’t feature its stop numbers on maps like Link does.

      1. Perhaps getting ahead of ourselves, but do you think we will hear some sort of announcement on Lynnwood-bound 2 Line trains as they approach the ID-Chinatown station that says something to the effect of “Transfer here for 1-Line Southbound service to SeaTac-Airport.” I’ve noticed that Link announcements are fairly spartan – not even calling out transfers to other services light street cars, Monorail and Sounder. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bag thing, but this feels like the kind of transfer that might require some extra audio messaging?

  4. I haven’t been publishing all the single-tracking episodes at various stations because there are so many of them, many are announced a day or less before starting, and a few have been canceled before the started. We go through a three-week maintenance reduction with single-tracking and we think that’s the end of it for several months, but then there’s another one a week later, and another the week after that, and so on. And each time Link’s frequency gets reduced to 12 minutes. After a while it feels like Link’s frequency for the past two months has been reduced more than it’s been normal. Often it’s after 5:30pm on weekdays or all day weekends, but sometimes it’s weekday daytime too. It’s understandable when there’s an unplanned breakdown or something on the the track, but half of them seem to be to continue maintenance projects.

    I’m just hoping that all this disruption now means everything will be fixed when the full 2 Line starts, and we can blissfully have some months with reliable 4-5 minute service in the shared segment and 8-10 minute south and east, rather than these 12-minute reductions continuing forever.

    1. What happens when they need to single track with the 1 and 2 lines both running together?

      Is it going to be 12 minute frequencies between the two (24 minutes overall) or are they going to try to have them in pairs or something? Are they going to terminate 2 line trains somewhere early?

      24 minute frequencies with this common of an occurrence can’t be acceptable.

    2. I assume 12 minutes is the most they can run trains through, otherwise it would be more frequent during current occurrences. So that might lead to 12 minutes in the shared segment and 24 minutes south and east. ST hasn’t seen current 12-minute service as a big enough crisis to mitigate it, and it has routinely reduced service in the dowtown tunnel to 24-40 minutes. So if it was going to do something different in the future, why isn’t it doing it now? Since it’s not doing anything now, why should we think it will then?

    1. Cool. I agree with the editorial. I made a comment there with the idea that we’ve discussed here quite a bit. Get rid of the 574 but have the 594 stop in Federal Way on the way to Downtown Seattle.

      I’m more ambivalent about the 590 (and I didn’t differentiate between the 590 and 594 in the comments). I have made the case for truncating it at Federal Way (since it only runs at the same time that Sounder does). I’m not sure that is necessary though (it runs a lot less often now).

    2. We’ve screamed warnings about this back to 2014.

      Pierce had two responses. One, that while the original spine vision in the 1990s was to connect Tacoma to downtown Seattle, in the mid 2010s that was secondary, and the main reason Pierce needed the extension was to get to the airport, which would attract employers to Tacoma.

      Two, that I-5 congestion would continue to get worse every year, so that by the time opened the buses would have slowed down to Link’s speed.

      I’ve done a few travel-time comparisons over the years, and some of the bus slowdowns had already occurred as of 2022 or 2023, so Link was comparable to Tacoma Dome full time and to Federal Way peak hours. Let’s see what it is now.

      Westlake-Tacoma Dome: Link 75 minutes (estimated). 590 at 5pm 74 minutes (99%). 594 at noon 59 minutes (79%). 594 Sunday 8am 54 minutes (72%).

      Westlake-Federal Way: Link 55 minutes (estimated). 577 at 5pm 46 minutes (84%). 577 at noon 40 minutes (73%). 577 Sunday 8am 38 minutes (70%).

      So the buses have gotten faster again.

      Still, many people care only about peak hours, and Tacoma Dome at peak is comparable.

      Off-peak there’s also Link’s frequency. Link runs every 10 minutes but the buses are 15-30 minutes or in a recession 60 minutes. So with Link you don’t have to wait as long or time your activities around the buses’ pulses. That makes up for some of the travel time, and is more psychologically satisfying for average passengers, because people hate waiting more than they hate traveling longer.

      Link also doesn’t suffer car-car collisions or lane closures that can raise the travel time from 60 to 90 minutes or more. These happen every couple weeks somewhere in Pugetopolis.

      1. Also Tacoma Dome-King St: Link 70 minutes (estimated), Sounder S 60 minutes (86%).

        I think Tacoma should focus on Sounder improvements and reevaluate Tacoma Dome Link in another 5-10 years.

      2. It should, but it has been single-mindedly focused on this for the past 11 years, or 30 years if you go back to the origin of the Spine, so I doubt it will change its mind now when it’s so close to construction.

      3. So the buses have gotten faster again.

        It is quite possible that over the long term the buses will continue to get faster. While the simplest thing to do is just change the signs to HOV-3 it is quite likely it will be HOT-3. This could very well accomplish the same thing. A public transportation agency throwing up their hands and saying traffic will be worse in the future is like the government saying hunger will be worse in the future. They actually have control over that.

        Still, many people care only about peak hours, and Tacoma Dome at peak is comparable.

        But Sounder is considerably faster than Link and yet plenty of people take the bus. I’ve always been a bit surprised about that, but that is the case.

        So with Link you don’t have to wait as long or time your activities around the buses’ pulses.

        In the short term the timing is tricky. If the buses are truncated in Federal Way you have to time them and hope that they are timed well with Link. That is tricky with a bus because you might encounter a delay. ST tried to do that at Roosevelt and just gave up. The bus runs every fifteen minutes and the train runs every ten (midday) and more often during peak. Basically folks just time that bus and hope for the best with the transfer. Going the other direction they can’t time it.

        The same approach is reasonable for Tacoma but with express buses that stop along the way. This means buses running every fifteen minutes to Seattle. Riders transferring to Link have to cross their fingers and hope for a good connection.

        In the long run (with Tacoma Dome Link) there is no guarantee that the train to Tacoma will run every ten minutes. It is quite possible it runs every twenty. That being the case a bus running every twenty (or better yet fifteen) would compete well with it.

        It is worth noting that midday a bus is so much faster than Link that frequency has to be really bad on the bus for Link to be the better option. For example imagine they ran both to the Tacoma Dome. Assume the train takes an extra fifteen minutes to get to Seattle. Now run a bus every half hour and the train every ten minutes (like today). Imagine you arrive just after they both leave. For the next ten minutes, Link is the better choice. But once that train goes by it is actually faster to wait an extra ten minutes for the bus. It will get you there five minutes faster. So if you are just randomly showing up, the bus actually wins more often than not. Of course people don’t usually just “show up” at the Tacoma Dome and make a spontaneous trip to Seattle. If the bus runs every half hour it is reasonable that they try and time it.

        But that is all distant future. The main thing to fight for now is retaining the express service to Seattle (especially midday service which they should bump up to every fifteen minutes).

        As I wrote up above I’m ambivalent about peak service from Tacoma to Seattle. On the one hand it really isn’t needed. You can take Sounder or transfer to Link (assuming they ran a bus to Federal Way during peak). On the other hand there are still plenty of riders. I could see them running the 590, but every 20 minutes when Sounder is running. They would run opposite each other, which means that if you just miss Sounder you could catch the bus (and vice versa). So ten minute transit headways to Seattle, basically. They could then compliment this with a bus that ends at Federal Way (in sync with Sounder). Thus people who are trying to get to Link (e. g. to the airport) would have a bus every ten minutes.

      4. “While the simplest thing to do is just change the signs to HOV-3 it is quite likely it will be HOT-3.”

        ST has no control over that; only WSDOT can do it. WSDOT could have done it ten or twenty years ago, so why would it do it now? HOT would require a capital outlay to charge the tolls in that segment. WSDOT hasn’t budget for that and has many more projects in the pipeline before it.

      5. “Of course people don’t usually just “show up” at the Tacoma Dome and make a spontaneous trip to Seattle. If the bus runs every half hour it is reasonable that they try and time it.”

        The unreasonable part is forcing people to time it, as if Tacoma is an isolated rural town of 10,000 people like Snoqualmie or Vashon Island. All regional trunk routes and local suburban routes should run at least every 15 minutes, so that people can get around easily, it can compete with driving, and people can fit more activities/errands into the day (like they can with a car). I’ve had people tell me they don’t take transit because the can’t fit all their responsibilities into a day with it.

      6. “While the simplest thing to do is just change the signs to HOV-3 it is quite likely it will be HOT-3.”

        ST has no control over that; only WSDOT can do it.

        Technically that is true. But if the entire board made a non-binding resolution suggesting we change it then it is highly likely the state would. That would mean signatures from various mayors and counties representing millions of people as well as the head of WSDOT (who sits on the board). But they don’t. Instead they are are comfortable pretending it is completely out of their hands.

      7. All regional trunk routes and local suburban routes should run at least every 15 minutes

        Sure, but the farther you are the less important frequency is and the more important speed is. I think Tacoma should have buses running every fifteen minutes (and that was the plan). But if I had to choose between running the 594 every fifteen minutes or the 27 every fifteen minutes it isn’t close (it should be the 27). In general regional bus service is outstanding in Seattle relative to the service that exists inside it. That is because one agency (ST) has a lot more money to throw at it than the other.

      8. Speaking of toll lanes, I thought I read somewhere that the latest state budget or something will no longer exempt buses from HOT tolls or something like that? I thought that to be ridiculous – collecting a few thousand dollars from buses represents a tiny extraction from local transit agencies to pad WSDOT’s budget by like 0.0001
        I could be mistaken though.

      9. I would be suspect of the estimate of 75 minutes on Link from Tacoma Dome to Westlake. If I were a gambling man (which I am, if someone has money to lose), I would set the over/under at 82. It also ignores the transfer from anywhere where anyone actually is coming from in Pierce County to the Tacoma Dome. At least the 594 is coming from downtown Tacoma. You are already at a 3 seat ride on Link before you get to the airport, unless you live walking distance to Tacoma Dome. Yes, five or six people do, but not many.

      10. At the end of the day, Tacoma having multiple regional transit options (Light Rail, Commuter Rail, Intercity Rail, Regional Express busses, etc) is good for riders to have rather than having limited options. Means more people can move between parts of the metro easier.

      11. Cam:

        ST’s own web pages have inconsistent travel time estinates. They also appear to measure to IDS for some things and Westlake for others. The 74 minutes appears to be IDS when I look at actual 1 Line schedules and add them to the estimated travel time between Tacoma Dome and SeaTac on the TD Link page..

        ST made big mistakes in travel time estimates and fleet needs already. It’s why there was a panic about having enough train sets in 2027 last year. No one ever got publicly blamed for the very costly mistake.

        It’s sloppy analysis by ST. But ST is too arrogant to admit that they need to do better at developing travel time estimates. And the new CEO has no training on how to estimate transit travel time.

      12. 75 minutes is my estimate based on existing service. ST publishes estimates randomly in different marketing materials so I wouldn’t know where to look. Each source just lists one or two trip pairs, but they’re different pairs each time, so it’s not systematic.

        I think there was a state bill to make public transit buses subject to tolls but I don’t know if it passed.

      13. Yeah, for sure. I don’t have any solid evidence it is overly optimistic time estimate.

        Also, those midday times are going to be a lot different in 10 years. Rush Hour before the pandemic was turning in Rush Week. I suspect we will be back to that in 2035.

        Also, if we drop speed cameras liberally along our highways and/or take the keys away from idiot humans and give them to our AI overlords, I-5 may l look very different than today even if we don’t go HOV-5 or HOT-16 or whatever. If someone blows themselves up on I-5, express lanes are not immune. WSDOT actually tends to remove lane restrictions when the road is constricted via construction or crash, when it should do the opposite.

      14. Zach – the default plan is to actually remove the fast option (594) and replace it with a slow, inconvenient one (Link). For 5 billion dollars.

        I don’t understand how you can be so blasé about that ridiculous amount of money leading to that ridiculous outcome.

      15. “the default plan is to actually remove the fast option (594) and replace it with a slow, inconvenient one (Link). For 5 billion dollars.”

        You’re ignoring the higher Link frequency, traffic jams, and lane closures.

      16. The 594 is interesting. It’s very fast on the freeway (when traffic is flowing), but the surface streets of downtown Seattle and downtown Tacoma are very slow. So slow that half the time spent between, say, 10th/Commerce and 4th/Pine isn’t even on the freeway, but crawling on the surface streets of one of the two downtowns. Add in traffic on I-5, it gets worse, and a federal way stop, as some have proposed, would add another 5-10 minutes or so on top of that.

        In an ideal world, Link would make up for its slower travel between the two downtowns with faster travel within them. Except, for all the billions ST is spending, Link won’t even go to downtown Tacoma, but just end at Tacoma Dome, something I consider a major omission.

        If Link can’t serve downtown Tacoma directly, the next best thing would be a seamless transfer between real Link and Tacoma Link at Tacoma Dome station. This means the two trains stopping side by side, so the walking distance from one train to the other is just a few feet, and running Tacoma Link with the same frequency as Seattle Link, with a coordinated schedule. But, instead of spending it’s ST3 Tacoma Link budget to upgrade the frequency, they spent it to lengthen the line, forcing a decrease in frequency, and they made it take a loopy path so that many trip pairs are actually slower on the train than just walking up a couple flights of stairs.

      17. You’re ignoring the higher Link frequency, traffic jams, and lane closures.

        You’re ignoring breakdowns in Link, transfers and the possibility that Link will be less frequent than express bus service (to Tacoma). The main advantage of Tacoma Dome Link is that it serves a few stops between the Tacoma Dome and Federal Way. For riders using those stops it will be considerably faster. On the other hand the bus makes additional stops as well (in downtown Tacoma). At best it seems like a wash.

      18. but the surface streets of downtown Seattle and downtown Tacoma are very slow

        I wouldn’t call the surface streets of Seattle “very slow” for a bus. Of course Link is faster (that is why they built the bus tunnel) but having bus lanes helps. There are plenty of light rail systems that run in transit malls on the surface and they do just fine. That doesn’t mean they can’t make improvements. They could add a ramp from the I-5 HOV lanes to the SoDo Busway. I remember WSDOT having plans but they got put on the shelf and nothing every happened. This would not only help the Tacoma buses but other express buses (like those from Renton and Kent). It is worth noting that using the SoDo busway means an easy connection to Link. If the bus from SoDo Station to Westlake is too slow then riders could always transfer there (and most likely save time over making that transfer further south). This would also be a good place to transfer if you are headed to the UW as well.

        That basically leaves Tacoma itself. I don’t know how often the streetcar or buses get stuck in traffic (someone else can comment on that). From what I can tell there is a fair amount of exclusive running by the streetcar and yet it isn’t particularly fast. It looks like there is next to nothing for buses. Tacoma may be in that tough middle ground. They don’t want to piss off drivers for fear that business will go elsewhere (like a mall). But there is too much traffic downtown for the buses to run quickly. The long term answer is a downtown spine with BAT lanes of bus lanes. I’m not sure that is going to happen anytime soon. Tacoma has trouble just running the buses frequently.

      19. Also Tacoma Dome-King St: Link 70 minutes (estimated), Sounder S 60 minutes

        Exactly. It is worth noting that this is the same transfer point as Link. Imagine you have already taken the bus or streetcar to the Tacoma Dome (or driven). You are headed to Seattle. You have three choices: Link, Sounder or ST Express bus. Sounder will consistently get you to downtown faster than Link. If traffic isn’t bad (in the HOV lanes) then the bus will be faster than Sounder. If the goal is to get to Seattle then Tacoma Dome Link is worse than the alternatives.

        But that isn’t the only thing that Tacoma Dome Link adds. You may be headed to other Link locations. It isn’t clear how many people will be doing this — a few thousand at best is my guess. Also worth noting that the express bus to Seattle could easily stop at Federal Way. So for trips north of (and including) Federal Way, you’ve basically just moved the transfer point. I guess that is better, but not that much better. The other thing you’ve done is added stops between Federal Way and the Tacoma Dome. This means trips like Tacoma Dome to South Federal Way will be considerably faster. Hard to see the project being worth it.

        If you consider Tacoma Dome Link a replacement for trips to Seattle it is a poor one. If you consider it a way to serve Link locations north of Federal Way than it isn’t much better than express buses. If you consider it a mass transit system serving the area between Federal Way and the Tacoma Dome that it is unlike anything ST has built. U-Link, Northgate Link, Lynnwood Link, East Link, buses in Rainier Valley and to the airport — they all replaced (or will replace) buses that ran often and carried tens of thousands of riders between the stops they added. Not only for the end locations (e. g. Northgate to downtown) but for various trips along the way (Northgate to the UW, Roosevelt to Capitol Hill, etc.). But Tacoma Dome Link has none of that. It is a bizarre project that merits rethinking.

        But that is all in the distant future. For now it makes sense to preserve the express buses to Seattle but add a stop at Federal Way.

      20. “They could add a ramp from the I-5 HOV lanes to the SoDo Busway. ”

        ST intends to close the SODO busway in a few years to start building the palatial new SODO station north of Lander that has three boarding platforms each with escalators and elevators (when one center platform with level transfers would work and make transferring easier and faster).

        I suspect that dropping in HOV ramps also would not be easy nor cheap nor fast. I-5 there straddles a steep hillside underneath, and because there is no grassy median the only way to drop in HOV access is to first widen on the outside to get enough room followed by a demolition on the inside that may disturb the structural integrity of the highway overpass. It’s a challenge that involves so many sensitive elements that it’s way beyond my understanding on how to do it.

        Anyway, even if construction started this month it probably would not open before the busway is closed.

        I’m actually surprised that the busway closure has not been more widely discussed and opposed. WS Link will not only hurt transit travel time from West Seattle, it will hurt transit travel time from Renton, Kent and Tukwila too. And the hurt to them begins years earlier (maybe as soon as 2027 or 2028).

      21. ST intends to close the SODO busway in a few years

        Yes, which just shows how stupid ST3 is. People from Renton and Kent trying to get to Seattle will be worse off. That being said they will have to find someway for the buses to head north even if it isn’t as good as it is now. A connection from the HOV lanes to the SoDo replacement would definitely speed up the buses. For example I could see them adding BAT lanes on 6th Avenue from the viaduct to Lander. Then the BAT lanes could turn and go over to 4th or 1st (wherever they add BAT lanes). That way the bus would stop right next to the SoDo Link Station. Adding ramps from 6th to the HOV lanes of I-5 might even be easier than connecting them to the existing busway. Of course this wouldn’t be cheap but the express buses (101, 150, 594, etc.) carry way more riders than Tacoma Dome Link ever will. It also doesn’t look crazy expensive (my guess is it would be in the quarter billion dollar range).

      22. “instead of spending it’s ST3 Tacoma Link budget to upgrade the frequency, they spent it to lengthen the line, forcing a decrease in frequency”

        Has ST announced it will decrease frequency with the extension? Part of ST3 includes permanent operating funds, so it’s not zero-sum game relative to existing service.

      23. Is the proposal for a bus-only interchange with the HOV lanes aimed to connect with Industrial Way? That makes sense, since just to the south of Industrial and Airport Way there is some room between the main lanes of the freeway, and it’s briefly off structure [i.e. “on the surface”]. That location could probably accommodate a burrowing junction.

        Thete are City Light high voltage lines along Industrial Way to consider.

        But trying to fit it into the spaghetti bowl interchange between the West Seattle Freeway and I-5 would cost billions.

      24. @ Ross:

        It looks like the freeway lanes separate near the Industrial Way diagonal street. The SDOT sign shop is in between — but that means that the City could donate the property to the project as a local match. I didn’t fully realize that this gap between lanes was there.

        A SODO reroute would almost certainly involve 4th Ave.

        Rather than use 6th Ave, I would suggest using Airport Way between Lander and the ramps or just staying in 4th and forgoing a Link transfer. 6th and Spokane gets rather congested.

        Would it be a bus-only or HOV off-ramp? I could see the ramp being used by driving stadium goers in HOVs. Maybe the stadium interests would contribute to the project?

      25. “You’re ignoring breakdowns in Link”

        Link has a lot of breakdowns now but that’s probably not permanent because almost all peer systems are more reliable.

        Link depends on a few professionally-maintained vehicles and a couple hundred professional drivers. The freeways are full of amateur jackass drivers and old clunkers, and the open lanes allow cars to veer out of their lane and crash into another car. Sometimes Link has reductions or outages almost every day, but the freeways have congestion every day.

        “the possibility that Link will be less frequent than express bus service (to Tacoma”

        The ONLY time ST has run ST Express every 10 minutes is peak hours, and sometimes only in the peak direction. So you’re possbly improving service 30 hours a week but leaving 67 hours behind. You’re only addressing 30% of the day.

        You’ll doubtless say that ST might turn back some trains at Federal Way and give Tacoma only 20-minute service, but that’s blind speculation. It’s impossible to confirm that 15 years in the future. The precedents are on the other side: Link’s existing service for 16 years, and transit best practices (a metro should be frequent in order to be fully useful). The only times Link has gone below 10 minutes before 10pm are for maintenance or during the pandemic. What do you think the Pierce boardmembers will say if staff suggest having trains only every 20 minutes. They’ll say, “We’ve been paying ST taxes expecting to get good Link service” or “Tacoma deserves the minimum frequency Seattle has”.

      26. In downtown Tacoma between 10th and Tacoma Dome, the 594 is slow because it ends up on Pac Ave, where the lights are incredibly poorly timed, and there are far too many stops for an express bus. There is actually very little traffic to speak of on Pac Ave, until you get close to 21st, where 509 and 705 access ramps are. Even then, I’ve never seen anyone miss a light due to backups. That could be fixed by sharing the T-Link right-of-way for a bit, then improving the light timing. Preferably, have the lights triggered by the bus approaching.

        If on bike, I often race and beat the bus to the Tacoma Dome, if I miss it at 10th and Commerce. That’s embarrassing.

        I don’t really understand where you are thinking of the Busway ramps. I haven’t really seen too much slowdown doing the current routing onto the Spokane Viaduct to 6th Ave, or the reverse. The traffic usually tends to back up northbound after that Spokane/West Seattle offramp the bus currently takes. If the ramp to the busway is past that, it might actually be slower.

      28. I should also qualify my comment to say that, relative to other buses downtown, the 594 is particularly slow. It’s a combination of long red lights on east/west streets getting on and off the SODO busway, single-door buses that take a long time to load and unload passengers, a lots of lights and lack of bus lanes in downtown Tacoma (the streetcar gets a dedicated lane in downtown Tacoma, but not the buses). I’ve been on trips where that one mile between Tacoma Dome and 10th/Commerce took 20 minutes – on a weekend, which is bad (bus, Tacoma Link, as currently implemented, is no better, due to the transfer overhead and poor frequency).

      29. Speaking of which, the 578 gets to skip SODO busway and take I-5 directly to Seneca St. Is there any rhyme or reason to Federal Way deserving a more direct path to downtown Seattle than Tacoma, or is it just happenstance?

      30. Whatever happened to increasingly service on the Sounder S line?

        While it was up to negotiations with BNSF, the plan was to do what was needed to get more trains on the line.

        Ideally they’d have just worked to shift most freight (with plenty of upgrades) to the much lesser used (UP) rail line to the west while the current BNSF line carries passenger rail and some local freight.

      32. @WL — Fantastic! Your ability to find this stuff is truly extraordinary. What is that originally from? I remember seeing it as part of a list of WSDOT proposals but it appears to show up in various agency lists. I guess the idea goes way back. This document from (roughly) 1997 has it listed as well: https://clerk.seattle.gov/~ordpics/113361_11.htm. Look for “Industrial Way” and you can see the project costing between $39.19 M and $46.10 M in 1997 dollars.

      33. Yeah, that would be helpful. Maybe not 100 million helpful, but I’d take it over another park and ride parking garage any day.

      34. Cam, to get to or from the West Seattle Freeway (“Spokane”) ramps the buses have to cross all the general traffic.

      35. [Ad hom.]

        I TALKED about a burrowing junction to Industrial Way BEFORE I mentioned that “threading it through the spaghetti bowl at Spokane would cost billions.” It’s rebuilding the West Seattle Freeway interchange with I-5 that I was saying would be expensive. Now maybe “billions” is an exaggeration, but I talked about using Industrial Way immeidately before”.

        [Ad hom. Editor’s note: Repeated ad hominem attacks can lead to the commentator being banned.]

      36. Editor, I apologize for yelling at WL, but I was realy angry at the way he misrepresented what I wrote.

        Since no one said they thought I was at least somewhat justified or “Hey, that’s a good idea; the planners even thought so at one time!”, I gather you would all just as soon see me gone. So, OK, the old guy shaking his cane cedes the field to the TechBros.

        Mike or whoever, please ban my IP (or whatever you do) after this post, so that if I regret my decision, I won’t be able to take it back and start commenting again.

        I have this final comment that I hope someone reads.

        To the general topic of The Busway, I just want to say one last time, “Please folks, don’t give in to ST’s absurd plan to sacrifice the busway for a six trains per hour redundant trackway.”

        It’s a gigantic waste of money, and will require some sort of inferior BAT lane half-solution on Fourth Avenue for the remaining southend buses not feeding Link.

        There are more lights along Fourth between Spokane and Royal Brougham than on the busway and plenty of double parking trucks. No “solution” that puts buses at the effect of traffic will as reliable or quick as keeping the busway.

        Unless and until the trackway along Martin Luther King Way is elevated, trenched or overpassed, there will be no more trains traveling between Lander and Royal Brougham than sixteen per hour at the peaks, ten from Line 1 and six from Line 3.

        Even if DSTT2 is built as planned, sharing the existing trackway between Forrest and just south of Stadium can be accommodated without level crossings. The pocket just south of Stadium could be replaced by the Line 1 southbound track rising from the tunnel. True, the northbound Line 3 track might have to be “humped” six to ten feet over the rising tube.

        But whoop-te-do! Flying junctions have been replacing level ones for a hundred and forty years. In service.

        At the south end of the shared trackage, the northbound Line 3 trains can simply take the almost never-used bikeway between Forrest and Lander. One building would almost certainly have to be “trimmed” back six to ten feet and another one possibly a couple, depending on the envelope ST requires. The northbound tracks would merge under or just north of the new overpass.

        Lander is going to have an overpass in ST’s plan, so building one in this alternative is a no-extra-cost requirement. Similarly, Holgate will either be overpassed or closed in ST’s plan, so doing either in the alternative is a wash too, too. Even if Holgate were left open and at-grade, having all the trains on one pair of tracks is much safer than on two pairs.

        The southbound diversion of Line 3 is a potential snag. Al believes that the structure at the curve into Forrest Street cannot be modified to support a turnout and diverging track. He may be right, but I believe that it is possible to build a sufficiently sturdy structure around the existing one to take the weight of a diverging train. I may be wrong, but it should not cost much to find out.

        If I am wrong, then the southbound diversion could happen just north of Lander, and the Line 3 track could occupy the northbound busway lane for the block to Forrest and a few yards farther.

        This would necessutate a single-lane operation of the busway for that block plus, but the sort of traffic signals that control semi-permanent single-lane roadway sections could be used in conjunction with a “request” protocol similar to that LRV’s use to depart a station.

        The station at SoDo would be replaced as a part of this re-alignment with a center-platform station with the northbound track moved eastward into the current northbound platform’ space, the southbound track moved into the current southbound platform’s space, and a new platform built in the middle where the tracks are today.

        This would require building temporary platforms a bit to the north of the current ones during the platform reconfiguration, but that’s not the end of the world.

        I’s also suggest adding an auxiliary side platform to the northbound side to make transfers in the AM direction easy without requiring crossing the track from the bus and car-dropoff to the east.

        This would easily save a billion dollars and give West Seattle riders that coveted ride to downtown Seattle and UW without an up-over-and-down transfer for ten years.

        If WSLE is going to be built, this is a way to cut the cost by at least 15% and make it worthwhile sooner.

        As a reply to Al’s suggestion about using Airport Way instead of Sixth, at first I thought that is was super idea. The intersection at Airport Way and Spokane is not a “through” for Spokane Street, and there is a left turn lane northbound. It would be possible to widen the roadway enough to put a barrier between the two northbound lanes and make the right-hand lane bus-only. That would make the “to work” trip for most people delay free there.

        There is a left-turn lane at Lander which could be made bus-only, at least during peaks.

        But then I realized that if the busway is preserved, the buses will be “downstairs” alongside the LR right-of-way, and not available to turn left at Lander.

        Then I thought “Industrial Way itself is indeed quite attractive, since it diagonals northwest, the ideal align ment, and has that wide median in which the bus ramps could land!” However, just north of it the land along the east side of the UP switching lead is too narrow behind the Greenleaf Foods warehouse (where I worked for Community Produce in the 1970’s). If one uses Industrial, I thought, one also has to use Sixth South, which as Al noted is a bad intersection with a number of cycles, in particular those favoring cross-traffic entering or leaving I-5 or Columbian Way.

        But then I realized that Diagonal Way offers an access to the empty pathway next to the switching lead farther north where it is quite adequate for a two-way busway, so it seems that the ideal is something like the pathway on this Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJwBNF8R2Sp/

        That’s it. Fight to keep the busway, at least until Line 1 reaches its potential.

        Farewell.

      37. Tom, it was me. Banning silences someone completely regardless of IP, and you haven’t reached that level.

      38. The reason the SODO busway exists is to get buses out of the congestion at the freeway entrances downtown and in the I-5 segment between midtown and Spokane Street. Having the buses get on I-5 downtown again seems like a step backward. I’d turn the question around and ask, “Why doesn’t the 577 use the busway?” I’ve been on the 577 when it’s stopped waiting to get onto the freeway downtown, and I’ve been in buses and cars in I-5 bottlenecks between I-5 and Spokane Street, so why would we want all south end express routes to go through that when we’ve got two bus-exclusive BRT-grade lanes for them there (a rarity in Pugetopolis).

      39. Tom, I hope you decide to unban yourself someday. Take some time, think about it, then come back.

    3. Note again that King County Metro began its outreach about its FWLE bus network restructure without mention or inclusion of the ST and PT routes. Where is the interagency integration and cooperation?

    1. Interesting. For reference, the list of Public Transportation Benefit Areas is here: https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/government-organization/special-districts/local-transit-authorities#ptba

      Based on the supporting argument, Intercity Transit wanted to increase the board of their PTBA to include representation of transit riders, but had to ask the legislature to allow that authority. So, this bill allows PBTAs to increase the size of the PTBA board to add 2 members representative of transit riders.

  7. Well….. Spokane is one-upping Seattle, Portland, VanBC, and pretty much every city on the West Coast. They are skipping rail, skipping monorail, skipping gondolas (they actually already have one), and going straight to zip lines.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/northwest/downtown-spokane-zip-line-could-launch-as-soon-as-july/

    Zip lines should be faster, more reliable, and much cheaper to implement than just about any other transportation mode.

    Time to change direction?

    1. Talk about a tourist attraction that doesn’t address ordinary people’s transit needs or unwillingness to hang from a cable.

  8. That’s really unfortunate to hear about Kitsap fare policy for their ferries. I’m guessing it applies to employer and UPASS cards as well?

  9. Am I tight that dow had his first official act as ceo when he announced the slippage of a connected 2 line until early 2026? They’re getting ominously close to the world cup dates but that’s hardly a surprise.

    1. Seattle’s portion of the Club World Cup runs June 15-25 of next month. The crowds from Milan, Paris, Madrid, Rio, Buenos Aires, and Urawa might be of similar size. I bet a chunk of them are getting private shuttle buses bundled into their travel packages. That might save some of the embarrassment of Seattle not yet being transit-ready for the (men’s nations) World Cup.

  10. Ha. I don’t know how Eastside Transit did it, or if maybe this video originated somewhere else, but they just posted a Cab View video of the station areas of DRLE. It’s sort of fun to see the new extension from this perspective

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIZ-MXf5Xg

    Also, they have an additional video shot from the top of the Marymoor Village garage. It’s interesting to see Link moving freely throughout the area while the traffic is mainly stopped. And a few Metro buses are visible too.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hbCv3An8zdE

  11. I wonder how much money Washington state could save by building its new ferries in a competitive shipyard in Europe or Asia? It would sure be interesting to get a competitive bid.

    If the Feds want to subsidize US shipyards, make them pay the difference.

    1. Well, we have no idea of the reason(s) why Jon Talton lost his job in Phoenix. Supporting light rail may have been a factor; maybe a small one, maybe a larger one. I wouldn’t put too much into that part of his column. Talton can spin that situation any way he wants at this point; it doesn’t really matter.

      1. @Brad C,

        I have no real reason to doubt Talton’s opinion as to why he lost his job in Phoenix. He was there, and it is his lived experience. Barring real facts and documentation, I’ll go with firsthand experience every time.

        That said, Talton does seem to have a good grasp of facts and of economics. It’s just hard to argue with the utility of a system that can move 12 times as many passengers as a bus, move them further and faster in the same amount of time, do so more reliably, and do so using only one operator instead of twelve.

        I think the efficiency of Light Rail is one reason so many people oppose it. It simply takes fewer people to do the same job, and that is threatening to people whose livelihoods come from providing rubber tired transit.

        But times change and the mode wars of the 80’s are mainly over in the policy circles. Light Rail will continue to take on a larger percentage of the heavy lifting on the high demand corridors, and the bus providers will continue us to migrate to more of a feeder and last mile provider model.

        It’s what the region needs, and it is highly efficient.

      2. It’s just hard to argue with the utility of a system that can move 12 times as many passengers as a bus, move them further and faster in the same amount of time, do so more reliably, and do so using only one operator instead of twelve.

        But that isn’t the issue. No one is arguing that rail isn’t useful.

        But that basically sums up the problem with so much of the discussion. Supporters of rail are espousing its inherit benefits. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we are adding rail in the right places. I think it is obvious we aren’t. As with similar systems across the country there is obsession over long distance travel. It is completely backwards. Given the high quality freeways that exist in our country, the lack of existing rail to the various suburbs and the low density nature of those suburbs it is the literally the last place we should add rail. The time savings are minimal compared to express buses. The number of people who are served are smaller. In contrast focusing on the urban core of a city is far more likely to reward riders.

        To be clear there is value in connecting to the freeway so that those express buses can either connect to the rail system or just truncate there. But even then it should come on the backs of a thorough system that covers the core. Otherwise you end up with a system that does very few any good, as explained very well in this comment from over ten years ago: https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/02/14/news-roundup-geeks/#comment-292594.

        Yet if you take the “light rail good — cars bad” attitude then you never get to this point. You just assume that any investment in light rail is worthy. If, on the other hand you figure light rail has its place then you begin by asking where it would do the most good for the money spent. As a result you end up with something radically different than ST3. Unfortunately Talton — like so many — hasn’t bothered to ask that question.

      3. “I think the efficiency of Light Rail is one reason so many people oppose it. It simply takes fewer people to do the same job, and that is threatening to people whose livelihoods come from providing rubber tired transit.”

        Only a tiny fraction of the public or voters care about this. Far more people care about effective transit, what they perceive as effective transit (e.g., mimicking freeway buses), mode aesthetics, or hoping that other people use transit to make more room for their car.

        Sound Transit cares more than most about displacing drivers because it’s a liberal government agency in a union state. That hasn’t stopped it from building light rail, although it was an argument early on against automation. Outside ST, about the only people who prioritize union jobs over effective transportation are some with a family member in it and some hard-core leftists.

      4. “Light Rail will continue to take on a larger percentage of the heavy lifting on the high demand corridors, and the bus providers will continue us to migrate to more of a feeder and last mile provider model.”

        Tacoma Dome to Federal Way isn’t a high demand corridor. Nether is Issaquah to Kirkland. SoundTransit’s own ridership estimates illustrate this.

    2. Talton is a good writer and he has an excellent grasp of economics. He explains very well how union membership is directly tied with the middle class (and what it means for this area). But I don’t think he gets transit at all. Like so many who have a limited understanding of transit he completely ignores buses. There is this assumption that rail is fundamentally better or more important when it isn’t. It really depends on the city and the particular project. In just about every city the two go together. Vancouver has by far the best transit system for a city its size and one of the best on the West Coast (despite being much smaller than San Fransisco and L. A.). It has an outstanding rail system but the buses carry way more riders. In most cities around the world (certainly most in the U. S.) you have to have a good bus system to have a good transit system. I don’t think Talton gets that.

      For example Talton has written in the past about how Link light rail connecting Seattle and Tacoma will transform Tacoma and I just don’t buy it. It will play such a minor role in the future transit use (like similar systems built in the U. S.). The key for cities like Tacoma is improving their bus system. Even in Seattle that is likely more important than whether Ballard or West Seattle Link get built. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t build more rail in Seattle but it is critical we also improve the buses.

Comments are closed.