Local Transit News:
- Sound Transit wants to know what would make it easier for you to walk, bike, or roll to the future Everett Link Station (Sound Transit).
- The At-Grade Crossing improvement program continues, with new roadway markings coming to four intersections on MLK to deter drivers from stopping near the tracks (Sound Transit).
- Pierce Transit will adjust its Runner demand-response taxi zones June 8 to focus on areas and times it’s most used and minimize overlap between zones.
- Summer transit is back with Trailhead Direct, the Waterfront Shuttle, bicycle weekends, the Hurricane Ridge shuttle, and more (The Urbanist).
- A Community Transit bus caught fire on Friday, an event so rare it made the pages of the Seattle Times ($). No injuries reported.
- The Washington State Legislature has officially approved WSDOT’s proposed Cascades service improvement plan (The Urbanist).
- Whidbey-based shipbuilder NBBB suggests splitting the order for new hybrid battery-diesel ferries with the Florida-based, lower-priced competitor (The Seattle Times, $).
- Washington appears to be the first state in the USA to legalize speed limits less than 20 mph, paving the way for “shared streets” (The Urbanist).
Other Transportation:
- Uber will soon start offering fixed-route commuter shuttles in major US cities (TechCrunch). The arc of transportation is long but bends towards mass transit.
- Los Angeles’ plans for a “car-free” 2028 Olympics now include yet-untested “air taxis” (Mass Transit). Are bus lanes really that hard?
Land Use & Housing:
- An audio recap (1 hour, 49 mins) of the “Future of Seattle Housing” panel hosted by The Urbanist and Seattle YIMBY (The Urbanist).
- New state law means permits for housing projects can’t be denied by municipalities noncompliant with state housing law if some of the units are affordable (The Urbanist).
- Sprawl is not the solution to America’s housing crisis (Strong Towns).
Commentary & Miscellaneous:
- Charles Prestrud says if Dow Constantine’s ultimate test is whether he can change ST’s course to avoid “a train wreck” (KOMO News).
- Mayoral Candidate Katie Wilson offers Five Ways to Lower Rents in Seattle (The Urbanist).
- Jarrett Walker was the guest of a recent episode of Seattle-based energy policy podcast “Volts”, in which he answers the question “how is transit doing in the US?” (Human Transit; Volts Podcast).
- Danny Westneat thinks Seattle’s “Blue City Blues” might be turning around (The Seattle Times, $).
- Jon Talton touts the economic benefits of light rail (The Seattle Times, $). Rail bias much?
- Seattle’s newest $700M “subway” between Fremont, Ballard, and Queen Anne is only for stormwater, over half of which is generated by car-oriented streets (City Observatory).
- While Europe and Asia built railways, America built highways and regret (New York Times, gift link). Meanwhile, Japan is aiming to add platform doors to nearly 1,400 train stations by 2030 to reach a goal of 4,000 stations with the safety barriers (The Japan Times).
This is an Open Thread. Contact us if you’d like to add your perspective on Puget Sound-area transit and land use issues to the front page of the Blog.
Re RapidRide launches taking hours from other routes, RapidRide projects come with one-time capital money for the street, red buses, stations, ORCA readers, and next-arrival display, but there’s no ongoing money for the additional service hours required by the higher frequency. So it comes from the rest of the subarea,
Usually there’s a simultaneous restructure making the network unrecognizable, so it’s hard to tell which pre-restructure routes it was taken from because no comparable routes exist any more. For instance, creating the D also created the 40. Initially the 40 was hourly evenings (halving frequency on 24th but doubling it on 15th). But 24th had brand-new Ballard-Fremont and Ballard-Northgate service compared to its route 18 ancestor, so was that a net loss or a net gain? Most people said it was a net gain. The real losers were coverage areas like 32nd and Nickerson. 32nd lost a one-seat ride to downtown (17); Nickerson lost service (17). I think; it’s hard to remember which changes occurred with the C&D (2012), E (2013), and the 2014 recession cuts, because they were all one after the other bam, bam, bam.
But, RapidRide I will be easier to tell. Its restructure has already happened in the late 2010s. The 160 was created to prefigure the RapidRide corridor and prebuild ridership. Previously the northern half was the 169, and the southern half was the 180. This triggered changes to those routes and the 164 and 168 and others, including straighten out the 168, and giving Auburn a one-seat ride to Renton instead of to Sea-Tac & Burien. It added frequency in the 160 corridor, but not as much as the RapidRide standard. So when RapidRide I starts, the corridor will probably jump from 20 minutes weekdays, 30 minutes weekend/evening, to 15 minutes full time. Where will the hours come from? We don’t know, because there has been no proposal yet, and we don’t know whether the economy (i.e., sales tax revenue) will be better or worse then.
Metro could theoretically raise the 160 to 15 minutes full time without procuring red buses, but in practice it doesn’t usually. So it’s either wait for RapidRide I, or don’t get the increase at all.
RapidRide K is in a more complicated position. Originally the K was going to be Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond, so the 250 was created to prefigure it (adding new Kirkland-Redmond service on 85th). Later the K was modified to Bellevue-Kirkland-Totem Lake. That will affect the 239 and 255 and NE 85th Street in ways not anticipated in the 250 restructure, so something will have to happen to them. The East Link restructure will prepare for the K further, turning the Lake Hills Connector segment into a short route that can be absorbed into the K. That restructure won’t address Kirkland, so we still don’t know what will happen there.
RapidRide G has been blamed for reducing the 10, 11, and 49 to 20 minutes, but the issue is more complicated. The 10, 11, and 49 had been increased by the Seattle Transit Measure: the 10 and 49 gained 15-minute evenings, and the 11 gained 15-20 minute weekdays & Saturdays. When the G was created, the Seattle Transit Measure simultaneously shifted resources from the 10, 11, and 49 to the 60 and 125 for “equity”. So it’s not really fair to blame it on the G. And some of the hours came from extending the 3 to the suspended Summit corridor. Metro asked the public whether it wanted Summit restoration or adding runs to the 10, 11, and 49, and the majority feedback was for the Summit restoration. And the 11 got an improvement: Sunday frequency went up from 30 to 20 minutes. So where did that Madison increase come from? (15 -> 6 minutes weekday, 30 -> 6 minutes Saturday, 30 -> 15 minutes Sunday/evening.) It’s hard to tell. It must have come from somewhere because it was a revenue-neutral restructure.
However, even with all this talk of RapidRide’s frequency increases taking hours from other routes, the fact remains that all the RapidRide corridors deserve their frequency. So even if they were taken from other routes, it’s a good thing. Because now at least somewhere has world-class service. You may have to walk from Pine to Madison, or 24th to 15th, or Bel-Red to 8th, but at least you have the opportunity to do so every 6-15 minutes, whereas previously you didn’t. And I’ve thought about walking from Ikea to the F as a workaround for the 906’s limited schedule, although I haven’t tried it.
Actually, Ballard->Northgate did have service prior to the creation of the D and the 40. It was part of route 75. It took the current 75’s path from U-district to Lake City, followed by the 61’s path from Lake City to Northgate, and the 40’s path from Northgate to Ballard.
Unlike the 40, the old 75 simply ended in Ballard, leaving almost no bus service between Ballard and Fremont. I use the word “almost” because there did actually exist a bus that went Ballard->Fremont->U-district (I think it may have been numbered 45, as the present-day route 45 did not exist yet). But, it operated only during rush hour and skipped many stops to act as an express. When this bus wasn’t running, the only transit options between Fremont and Ballard were quite cumbersome – all options required some combination of a long walk, a transfer that still had a bit of a walk, or a transfer with a significant amount of backtracking. The 40 filled this critical gap.
Also, Redmond-Kirkland service on 85th did exist before Route 250; I believe it was numbered 248 and ran only half-hourly.
Interesting. This map from 1988 has something a bit different. From what I gather the 62 went from Magnolia to Ballard to Northgate. I can’t seem to find a map between 1988 and Oran’s first map in December or 2015. I think the D was added in 2012 (it is on Oran’s map). That led to the 40 (connecting Fremont and Westlake).
And, it’s still half-hourly evenings and weekends. The frequency of Kirkland->Redmond was upgraded only during the weekday daytime hours. For the other part of the route (the Bellevue->Kirkland section), I don’t think they even added services. They just took the hours from the 234 and 235, combined, and folded them into the 250.
Ross,
Yes, there was a route 62 between Magnolia and Northgate; and, it was paired with Route 68. They were hourly. they were deleted in fall 1998. In fall 1998, new Route 31 was created and routes 30 and 62 were deleted. Route 75 connected the UW and Ballard via NTC; it lasted until fall 2012.
Usually there’s a simultaneous restructure [with RapidRide]
And that was the mistake with RapidRide G. To be clear, there was a restructure, it just wasn’t a very good one. They should have tried to fully leverage the increased speed and expected frequency of the G. The high frequency and speed of the G go together. It meant that the bus could travel the same distance much faster (allowing it to run more often for the same amount of money). Given its location it can then become a core route. People should be expected to walk a little farther and transfer more often to a route like the G just like they do with Link. Thus they should have done a restructure that expected some riders to transfer while simultaneously shifting service towards the faster route. This would have led to a much better network than the one they created.
However, even with all this talk of RapidRide’s frequency increases taking hours from other routes, the fact remains that all the RapidRide corridors deserve their frequency.
I’m not so sure. With a bus like the A and E, definitely. But the 8 and 44 perform better than the B, C, F and even the H. Given the obvious value of the 44 as a “core route” (as I described above) I could easily see shifting service from one of the RapidRide buses to the 44. We shouldn’t have to wait around for the various agencies to go through the BS involved with designating a bus as “RapidRide” if it is already performing at that level. Give the “normal” bus the extra service now.
In general I much prefer the approach that the Seattle Transit Benefit District is taking: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/TransitProgram/STMAnnualReports/STM_2022_Performance_Report.pdf. They have three classes of buses (Very Frequent, Frequent and Local). It doesn’t matter whether the bus is RapidRide or not. With over a dozen in the “Very Frequent” category it includes all of the Seattle RapidRide lines. But if the designations were more granular it is likely that some “normal” routes would be ranked higher than some RapidRide routes. (To be clear I quibble with some of the designations but I think the approach is solid. )
I think turning some service RapidRide make some of the projects more qualified for FTA funding like Capital Investment Grant usually granted to BRT or rail.
Other than that, I really don’t see much difference between RapidRide and super frequent regular service.
I think turning some service RapidRide make some of the projects more qualified for FTA funding like Capital Investment Grant usually granted to BRT or rail.
Yes. I think that is one of the driving factors. That and the fact that people like to cut ribbons and announce big projects. Make dozens of minor changes that speed up up dozen of buses carrying tens of thousands of riders and people just yawn. But announce a fancy new route with fancy buses and people think it is a big deal.
This post put it well: https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/down-with-the-brt-long-live-the-bus.
Im not quite sure what point the author is trying to make. They argue that brt projects in America should make less use of dedicated lanes and rely more on tsp?
“Yes. I think that is one of the driving factors. That and the fact that people like to cut ribbons and announce big projects. Make dozens of minor changes that speed up up dozen of buses carrying tens of thousands of riders and people just yawn. But announce a fancy new route with fancy buses and people think it is a big deal.”
Ribbon cutting is definitely part of it, but I think the idea that better branding helps change people’s perspective about transit and boost ridership has also been around to support BRT lite or simply frequent service with fancy livery.
I think it makes a valid point for area where public transportation didn’t have much presence. For example, you build a BRT or ART service somewhere there is no rail and barely frequent service, it is important to rebrand. There are urban areas out there in this country where people generally think public transportation is only for disabled. But all of these don’t really apply to Seattle where there is a robust transit system (perhaps a better one in the past) and average residents generally have experience using local transit service. When KCM announced that they are increasing frequency on an existing service, everyone understands what that means.
I think Seattle should learn from MUNI’s Van Ness Bus Rapid Transit. No change to transit vehicle nor renaming was done to MUNI Route 49. Just the dedicated bus lane and very frequent service. There is even no need to mention limited stop as there are all-day/peak non-RapidRide service out there that is making limited stop as well.
Ribbon cutting is definitely part of it, but I think the idea that better branding helps change people’s perspective about transit and boost ridership has also been around to support BRT lite or simply frequent service with fancy livery.
That is one of the things that Marco objects to (it isn’t my biggest issue). It perpetuates the idea that regular bus service is crap. To quote the author:
For instance, it has implicitly promoted the idea that better buses, that is, buses that run faster and on time, thanks to priority measures, can’t happen without a heavy infrastructure approach akin to rail-based transit.
I agree with the other points as well. For example:
bus priority measures exist on a continuum, from light infrastructure interventions as simple and discrete as bus bulbs and moving stops after intersections to fully grade-separated transitways. It makes no sense to draw an arbitrary legal threshold separating basic transit priority measures from a thing called “BRT.” Confining the use of center-running dedicated bus lanes to BRT projects because building a simple island bus stop suddenly makes them belong to a premium category of bus priority measures is silly. Still, this artificial threshold between BRT and non-BRT exists in many countries and shapes many bad planning decisions, often induced by the opportunity of pocketing federal or provincial funding dedicated to large infrastructure projects.
Moreover, there are system-wide organizational and soft infrastructure measures that deliver more significant advantages to all transit users and operators than a full-fledged BRT at a fraction of the cost, such as generalized all-door boarding, proof-of-payment and stop consolidation that are neglected because of their real or perceived political cost but also because they do not fall into the procedural sandbox of a project.
Speaking of which I’m not sure what part of the article you didn’t understand or disagree with, WL.
” It perpetuates the idea that regular bus service is crap.”
Because regular bus service is indeed total crap in a lot of places.
Atlanta stole Seattle’s ticket to subway and successfully built a system in the 70s and 80s. I would think a metro area with 5 million people and multi-line heavy rail system should have a decent bus transit service while what it has is total crap. They call 45-min headway regular service and 15-min headway frequent, and 20-30 minute headway semi-frequent.
So I can totally see why some transit agencies promote their BRT by distinguishing it from their own regular service.
The public image has been so bad. Reinventing is the only way.
Mike Orr,
What was your premise? Historically, there have been differences; the future is unknown. The RR program stemmed from Transit Now, a ballot measure that added new sales tax after the MVET was taken away. Before implementation, the Great Recession reduced revenue; the council added new revenue and the F line to follow the 40-40-20 rule on new hours. The midday hours improving Route 358 were the only north King hours for a while; there was an agreement between Seattle, Shoreline, and LFP regarding it. Subareas and their financial rules were ended in 2011. The implementations of the RR lines followed. The eye line will need new hours to achieve RR policy headway. The Gee line agreement with the FTA came before Covid, before the lower STBD tax rates, and the reductions to routes 10, 11, 12, and 49 must have their own story. The K line hours are also in the future; I have questions about Route 255 and the K pathway.
YouTube video: “How is an Intersection this Freak’n Great?!” It’s about 12th & Madison. But then someone in the comments said that the intersection is a “complete disaster.” And that comment got a lot of likes.
https://youtu.be/7qKUmoVf8ZM
Yeah, interesting video. I think they exaggerated how well we are doing and how poorly L. A. is doing. L. A. is just much bigger. It is much easier to notice the changes in Seattle for that reason. Anyway, I haven’t been to the area since the changes (I’ve had foot problems that have limited my mobility). It sure seems like an improvement but it is also a very tricky intersection (like much of Madison).
It is awkward for the 2 (and has been for a very long time). Union intersects Madison but you can’t go straight on it (even with a bus). I believe a westbound bus takes a right on 13th, then a left onto Madison, then a right onto Union (using the bus lane). An eastbound bus takes a right on 11th, a left on Madison and then a right on Union. So either direction the bus has to make three turns just to keep going straight (even with all of the other improvements).
In my opinion the bus should dogleg to Pine. That would be tricky too but I think you would end up with fewer turns even though you are switching to a different street. Right now you can’t go straight through Madison on 13th if you are heading south (https://maps.app.goo.gl/o7uzWi8nniKXU6QA9) but they could just allow buses (and only buses) to do that. It looks like you would have to get rid of the curb bulbs but otherwise that looks pretty simple. You would also want bus stops on 13th between Union and Madison (swapping places with the load/unload areas). It looks like the transfer between the 2 and G Line would actually be better.
You would also want to prioritize 13th for buses. There are a number of things they could do. For example right now a car can take a right from Union to 13th and then go any direction. I would force those drivers to take a right onto Madison. Eventually people would figure it out and use 14th instead (to go south on Madison or straight to Capitol Hill) thus reducing traffic for the buses. Likewise I could see the little section of 13th between Madison and Pike being one-way for cars (southbound only) and two-ways for buses. You would have to harden the street and get rid of parking on 13th but I think it could work nicely. That isn’t the only option but I think it would be very good if they put some effort into it.
@Ross
Right now the 2 doesn’t use the bus lane (or stop) on Union just west of Madison. Apparently there is a standoff between Metro and SDOT over adding a pedestrian signal across Union and for now Metro drivers refuse to go that way until one is installed.
Instead, the westbound 2 takes a right on 13th, continues straight through Madison, takes a left on Pike, another left on 11th, and finally a right to get back on to Union.
This current routing adds a lot of unnecessary time to the route, especially with the amount of pedestrian traffic that the intersection of Pike and 11th gets. It also leaves a brand new bus lane and raised stop withering away, unused.
Thanks RTB. That’s crazy. So the westbound bus is actually going on 13th up to Pike even though it isn’t serving it. So that also means the bus isn’t running under wire for that section. I did notice a picture of a 2 on 13th here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/9xaUfBHfY1iYBeqh8) but I assumed that was just during construction. Even if they eventually move the 2 (as I would like them to) the city should add the crosswalk so the bus can take a more sensible route in the meantime.
I should note that the crosswalk itself is there, just not a timed pedestrian walk signal, which I believe is the point of contention.
The irony is that the detour requires drivers to go through THREE un-signalized crosswalks so I really don’t understand what the hold up is
Maybe they are afraid a rookie driver might make a mistake. It is easy to see how you might view the roadway as “going straight” when you should view it as a right turn. If you view it as a right turn then of course you have to be careful about pedestrians. If you view it as going straight than you just assume pedestrians will yield (and if they don’t you honk). That still seems pretty weak.
It is also quite possible they are playing chicken. They want the signal real bad and they know they won’t get it unless they make life miserable in the meantime (and riders complain). Who knows, but it sucks.
I agree with RossB. The video missed the electric trolley bus eta that probably had great ridership. Madison Park had ETB service between 1940 and 1963. SDOT and Metro have a disappointing network around the Gee line. A commenter asserted that operators were refusing to enter east union street from East Madison street. Instead, it may be Safety; the operators drive what they are told to drive. There may be three issues. Metro had not installed the overhead. The westbound general purpose lane may be full so the inbound Route 2 buses have no space when turning from 14th Avenue East. Safety may not approve of the bus movement to east union street from East Madison street with the north-south movements not signalized. With the Gee, SDOT did not well consider the surrounding network; routes 2, 10, 11, 8, 12, and 60 seem flawed.
I’m sure it could be improved but I’ve been through this intersection quite a bit and I think it’s massively better than before. I think it’s quite straightforward in person; movements are restricted enough that there isn’t that much to think about.
I agree. It does seem much better. Have you biked through the area? It seems like biking could be a bit confusing (but that is true all over).
I haven’t biked across it. I see Lime scooters figuring out the crossings though, so it can’t be that complicated.
In general the E-W bike lane seems to be the dominant crossing direction. I would guess that heading E-W or N-S is straightforward, but turning might be confusing.
Yeah it is pretty straightforward in terms of navigating the bike lanes.
My only nitpick is the turn box when heading east on Union and wanting to turn right (south) on 12th. Currently it is on the north side of bike lanes . I often just pull in front of the concrete barrier to the south to wait for the signal.
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6129207,-122.3168364,3a,78.3y,309.16h,66.89t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sYruoK94QS6yqi2PMGSS7Sg!2e0!5s20240901T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D23.112971285752636%26panoid%3DYruoK94QS6yqi2PMGSS7Sg%26yaw%3D309.16253464537834!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
With the bicycle path crossing this intersection twice, is there an issue with cyclists running red lights? I’ve admittedly jaywalked there as a pedestrian.
Maybe the intersection should have a pedestrian and bicyclist scramble phase instead?
Since this project is complete now, I wonder if there is plan to restore trolleybus wire here and resume running trolleybus on Route 2?
I’m shocked that Pierce Transit Runner service costs sky rocketed and wait times soared when people actually wanted to use the service. Shocked.
At $50-$80 a boarding, it was obvious that this service was unsustainable if anybody actually wanted to use it. It clearly can’t scale.
So they are making it less convenient and less useful, so that they don’t have to deal with the obvious outcomes of either 1) ballooning wait-times (that they appear to be seeing now) 2) ballooning budgets that they can’t afford.
Cancel it and put in real buses and a frequency people will use, and will scale with what is obviously latent demand. Stop using limited dollars to try to compete with uber.
If that uber article’s perfect dovetail wasn’t so frustrating, it would be funny. Even Uber realized that buses are the only way to make transit scale.
I’ve always imagined Uber eventually getting into the intercity bus business, competing with Greyhound/Flix/etc., but offering single ticketing options where you pay one fare that includes, not only the bus itself, but also car rides to/from the bus stop up to a certain distance. The dispatch of the cars to pick up everyone up when the bus is approaching the destination would, of course, be automated by Uber. And, I could even see an option to share rides with another passenger on the same bus in exchange for a small discount.
I’m actually somewhat surprised that Uber has not already thought of this, the only reason I can think of is general bus stigma.
@adf2 — It doesn’t really fit the Uber model. Uber is based on the pizza delivery model. Pay drivers to use their own car to deliver pizza. But they took it a step further and basically said almost anyone can deliver a pizza. You don’t have to be an employee with regular hours. You can work when you want to work. Prices fluctuate with supply and demand. You sidestep taxicab regulations (and labor laws) to keep prices low.
Hard to see that working with intercity travel. The buses are owned by the company (not individuals). You need consistent drivers. You don’t want to plan your trip only to find that no driver is available or they will charge you twice as much. What Amazon does seems more closely related. But Amazon has a lot of flexibility. Unless you are willing to spend extra they won’t tell you what time your package will arrive, only what day. Thus they can contract out and work with available drivers to get your package their on time. I just don’t see that working with buses.
I don’t see it being part of Uber but I could definitely see a partnership. Intercity bus service isn’t a real great business in this country. It wouldn’t shock me if Greyhound got bought out by Uber but only because the investors think it is a bargain. But unlike Amazon, Uber doesn’t strike me as a company that is doing really well and ready to buy up any company (or enter any market). I think the most realistic scenario is some sort of partnership but it is hard to see it adding much value.
Which goes back to bus stigma. It has very little value precisely because almost nobody travels long distance on a bus, because of bus stigma.
If there were value, they could have bus drivers a regular employees while the car drivers are gig workers. After all, Uber does hire real employees as engineers. So, it’s not really a matter of labor model, it’s lack of demand because everyone has bus stigma.
It has very little value precisely because almost nobody travels long distance on a bus, because of bus stigma.
It is because the nature of long distance travel is different. The other day I was out and about with my wife. She had some errand to run and dropped me off at 100th & Aurora. I thought about taking the various buses home but decided to take a look at Lyft. I looked at the price and how long it would take and decided to just splurge.
I can’t imagine doing that for a trip to say, Portland. Stigma has nothing to do with it. The nature of the trip is different. It is not spontaneous. If you want point-to-point service it is really expensive. Thus you fully expect a two-stage process that involves getting to and from the airport or bus/train station.
they could have bus drivers a regular employees while the car drivers are gig workers
Sure, but then it isn’t Uber. That is like saying Uber should buy out the restaurants instead of partnering with them (with Uber Eats). Uber Eats fits their model — running restaurants does not.
Oh, and is there a flying stigma too? If not then maybe Uber should run an airline as well. (I’m joking.)
Again, I could see some sort of partnership and definitely some joint marketing for bus travel (e. g. “Taking Greyhound? Get 10% off your ride from the station using Uber”). But Uber taking over Greyhound isn’t a natural fit. It would add a considerable amount of risk while adding very little for Uber. Just about everyone knows about Uber as an option for getting from the station (and if they don’t it won’t matter if Uber owns the buses).
I get why you think there is a stigma associated with Greyhound. Intercity buses in the rest of the world tend to be much nicer. But that is why FlixBus bought out Greyhound and started using that brand for some of their trips. It is why various more upscale companies entered the US market as a way to try and provide something similar to what exists in much of Europe. Intercity bus service varies quite a bit in the US (check out this comment from a year ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1cg7v5i/americas_intercity_bus_system_is_actually_pretty/). I think the main reason why buses aren’t as popular in most of the US is simply because of the high car-ownership rates in the United States (the opposite could explain why they are popular in the Northeast). I think lots of European countries also subsidize buses to a higher degrees than the US as well. It is not really a stigma it is more just a preference based on the relatively low cost of gas and other factors.
Yeah, it is hard to tell what will happen with the microtransit fad. On the one hand agencies love it. They can provide the illusion of serving an area even though it can lead to really long wait times. It is also new and fancy (I’m surprised they don’t somehow market it using the phrase “AI” as in “We use a sophisticated AI algorithm to ensure prompt pickup and delivery”). By using a third party agency to deliver service they can undercut the unions.
On the other hand it is just a very bad value. Even with lower paid workers you end up spending a lot of money per rider. Word gets out about the really long wait times and they just abandon the service. I just wonder how often agencies will admit they made a mistake and were sold magic beans that turned to be just very overpriced beans.
On-demand transit seems like the cheapest way to provide “service” for sprawling, low-demand areas (like Lake Forest Park or Sammamish). But yeah something like DART seems like it would be much more effective in most scenarios.
Has anyone used DART? I’m curious how well it works. The online form/calling system seems really awkward to me, but I’ve never tried it.
There was a fixed route in the Ruston corridor before Runner took it away. The push for agency taxis comes from people who don’t want to go to a bus stop, want for a 30-60 minute pulse, or share a vehicle with thirty strangers. They see taxis as the modern solution to non-car transportation. They push agencies and government officials to provide taxi zones. And when politicians start pushing for it, agencies do so. They think it’s freeing to have an app that can summon a taxi anytime, without thinking about the freedom of not needing an app to go to a bus stop and catch a bus at the scheduled time.
It’s like bike racks on buses. The system only works if less than four mpeople have bikes at a time. If a third or half of the passengers had bikes, it would melt down.
The same with transit itself. If almost everybody traveled by transit like the 2020s, you’d need to increase capacity 2-4 times. Cities don’t even have a plan for that; they just do little increases here and there that assume most people will drive.
Exactly. It only works well if hardly anybody uses it. This in turn makes it expensive unless they charge drivers a lot less. Even then it could be very expensive (per rider).
2020s?
If we improved the safety of bike infrastructure such that everyone was riding to the bus or train station, there are obvious solutions, that are implemented all over the world. Bike racks. Lock your bike, and walk from your destination, or use another last-mile mode, such as bike or car share.
That would be an excellent problem to have.
No such solution exists for car share. Pierce Transit is charging 2 bucks but paying $50 for a service that Uber is charging $25 for. Of course it’s going to be popular. And of course it’s not going to scale, unless they actually run real transit.
I had no idea it was illegal to set a speed limit below 20mph. I know there are a lot of asinine laws out there, but I don’t understand how this ever became a thing.
It’s only intended for streets like Pike Place Market, not thru streets. Parking lots already have speed limits under 20 mph, even in the most car dependent suburbs, as people have to feel safe walking from their car to the building. The only difference is legalizing this on public property rather than private.
Yes, but it’s just totally crazy we had a floor on speed limits to begin with. Who came up with this idea?
I’d guess it came from the same car lobbyists that criminalized jaywalking in the early 20th century.
I think it can be helpful to understand some parts of the mindset behind the “car lobbying”. In the early days of roads you had a lot of signage and rules that varied from city to city. Standardizing signs and general rules across the state (and, largely, the nation) has made it a lot easier for people to understand how to drive in all these different places. Standardizing street types and what sorts of speeds are allowed on them is part of that. There really are towns in America where a significant part of their budget is essentially inducing visiting drivers to speed and then aggressively ticketing them. State rules that limit cities’ power to set speed limits can be seen as protecting drivers’ interests when they cross the boundary into a town where they don’t live, and thus don’t have the power to vote for leaders that represent their interests or rights. Higher levels of government (representing wider groups of people or broader interests) act this way all the time, on a variety of issues, and it’s not inherently nefarious.
The complete lack of a street category that allows speed limits under 20 has certainly been an overreach, one of the ways that car infrastructure has run roughshod over every part of America.
I often bike to get around and am regularly confronted with disjointed, illogical, and sometimes hostile rules that vary by jurisdiction even within the city of Seattle based on land ownnership. We have paths and lanes in SDOT ROWs, parks, Port land, UW land, even ROWs through privately-owned land. The port sets a ridiculous, hostile 5 MPH speed limit whose only plausible purpose could be trying to ward off any lawsuit that might arise if they caused an injury through bad maintenance or design, since nearly everyone (even quite slow joggers) are breaking the rules. Parks have nighttime closures that turn the notion that we even have a bike network into a fiction (and use these closures to justify lack of attention to nighttime visibility). UW has, in the past, exercised its power to close sections of the Burke-Gilman for really dubious reasons. Sometimes the same trail crosses boundaries that we don’t even see and the rules technically change! I wish we had a higher-level body taking the effort to stand up for our interests, making sure the rules we’re supposed to follow are consistent and reasonable. That effort should, of course, be more humane and consider others’ needs more than that of the car lobby has been for the last hundred years. But when you look at what happens, even within just one city, when nobody steps in and keep various jurisdictions in line, you can understand why the state taking on this role on behalf of drivers is popular and, in principle, can even be good.
While I think shared streets is a great idea in some contexts (in urban cores especially), we shouldn’t openly support jaywalking. Roads aren’t just for cars, but also buses. We need roads that can keep vehicles moving. People should be using the sidewalks and crosswalks.
Looks like the dead pull test on the bridge is about to start!
https://web.seattle.gov/Travelers/
Yep. Very good news indeed.
And it looks like they have cleared the first set of track bridges too. Even better.
At 10:28 AM, I see a light rail car on the bridge’s mid-span camera!
It looks like WSDOT reposition to keep the car in the frame.
At 10:52, it’s approaching the west bridge end. The service truck seems to be going backwards and pushing the train car.
@Al S,
Sound Transit’s Instahooey post states that the LRV made it completely across the bridge. I’m not sure if that is technically true, but it is good news nonetheless.
Now the question is; “Was this a real test? Or did Dow just force the contractor to drag an LRV across the bridge to blunt some of the negative press that has been coming out?”
The LRV was definitely equipped for envelope clearance testing, but……. Testing is very detailed. You can’t really tell how well a specific test went unless you know the specific objective for that specific test.
Here are a few more photos of the train crossing the bridge. Except this PNI post says it has photos and videos, but I’m only seeing photos.
And Lazarus, I believe its purpose was to test, but notify some media beforehand to come report on the event. I believe they did that with the Mercer Island dead car pull last fall, as well. Except, a lot fewer people were walking along side the tracks with the train during the Mercer Island dead car pull test, as compared with yesterday’s test.
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2025/05/trainspotting-with-npi-watch-a-link-light-rail-train-cross-lake-washington-under-tow-for-the-very-first-time.html
Balducci sent out a press release too. “This is a truly historic moment…. today I’m celebrating this milestone and giving thanks to all the people who have worked on this project and to everyone across the region who has supported that work for so long. And I can’t wait to ride that first train across the lake! ATTACHED PHOTOS CREDIT: A test train is pushed across the I-90 floating bridge from Mercer Island to Seattle on Wednesday. It marks the first of a series of tests to be conducted before the Link light rail line opens next year to connect East King County to Seattle. Photo courtesy Sound Transit.”
Of course, I can’t tell what role the test played in the total group of tests required.
Here’s another pic https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ks43bd/sound_transit_just_posted_this_on_their_instagram/
I saw a light rail train heading west this morning heading towards Mercer Island. I saw it while about to enter the bridge. I was biking east myself so only saw it briefly.
Anne- not sure you had enough time to notice but was the westbound train being towed or running on the overhead power?
Not 100% sure bit I didn’t notice any raised pantographs.
I love Katie Wilson’s ideas for lowering rents. Everything in there is solid. This is the number one problem in Seattle, and Bruce Harrell has definitely not been doing a good job on solving this.
I agree. I’ve also worked with her (since she is head of Seattle Transit Riders Union). She is smart and capable. I wish she had more government experience but I’ll probably still end up voting for her.
Christopher Cramer,
Because Mayor Bruce was a star UW linebacker, please allow me a football metaphor. Katie Wilson is blocking for Team Harrell. She’s never held public office, her ideas are pie in the sky and she doesn’t have a legit platform. All Katie is going to do is draw off Lefty support from another more reasonable candidate and allow Mayor Bruce to win a second term. Easy as pie.
If Ms. Wilson is indeed serous about being elected mayor, she needs to come up with the numbers for social housing. How much money for how many units? It’s really not that hard… it’s simple 7th grade math. If you want to sit at the grown up table, you have to act like a grownup.
I suspect “social housing” turns into the next “defund the police”. Unless there is a realistic plan, with actual numbers… it bullshit.
In full disclosure, I support more affordable housing and police reform. I’m not a big fan of political slogans.
Stop misrepresenting her position! Jesus, you make it sound like the *only* thing she mentioned was social housing. That is Harrell’s position, not hers. Harrell has resisted any attempt at upzoning. That has been his biggest weakness as an elected official his entire time in office. It has led to a huge increase in rents and a huge increase in homelessness. Wilson wants to change that. It is the first thing on that Op-Ed! How you managed to miss that is beyond me.
As for the cost of social housing, it depends in part on how easy it is to build housing. If we change the various regulations and allow more housing to be built, then building social housing is cheaper just like building market-rate housing is cheaper. Good God, man, this is so fucking obvious I don’t know why I have to spell it out to you. With looser regulations our public dollars go further. Private developers build more places. As a result the cost of rent is much lower than it would be otherwise. This ain’t rocket science. I can cite you numerous studies and point to various case studies around the globe (and even in this country). I can point to various lots in my own neighborhood that should have apartments or at the very least row houses but instead have big houses on gigantic lots because that is the only thing they can legally build. Feel free to ignore all that like a global-warming denier but don’t pretend it isn’t the cornerstone of her housing policy and the main difference between her and Harrell.
[Ed. Corrected runaway boldface.]
Wow! I am so looking forward to progress on getting ranked choice voting in the general election, where it belongs. I am so done with the politics of personal destruction that scares off our best and brightest (with the current exception of Katie Wilson, a very effective political genius) from even running. Elections ought to look more like a job interview, and less like WWE.
I meant to post the above much further down. The satirical blogger further down is nothing to do with transit or land use policy. People can read The Stranger for that sort of trashing.
Harrell’s approach to social housing was to be lukewarm about it, and say the funding should come from reducing funding to other housing programs. His approach (Proposition 1B) flopped in the election. Wilson’s approach (Proposition 1A) got overwhelming support from the voters.
If you want the mealy-mouthed do-nothing-without-kissing-the-Chamber’s-ring approach, Harrell is your guy. If you want good stuff to happen, Wilson has spent over a decade making good stuff happen, without kissing the Chamber’s ring.
Brent White,
Here’s a little of “the maths” for you on social housing…
Let’s say Seattle is adding 1,000 people a month currently and for near future. (it’s actually adding more!). If social housing was going to have an impact on the housing market…. wouldn’t it need to add at least a 1,000 new units a month? (12,000) a year?
So what would 1,000 unit of social housing cost? Low income housing in greater Puget Sound costs $400k per unit. Break it down for my Brent. How much would this cost?
After we have some general idea of what a meaningful social housing program is going to cost…. how would we pay for it?
Of all the progressive ideas in America…. Social housing one of the most far fetched and unrealistic.
All of Katie’s other ideas are just kicking landlords and builders in the balls…. Taking the profit out of building rental units in Seattle.
Bullshit! That is a complete misrepresentation of her position. Holy shit, did you even read the thing? The first item is: Zone for Abundant Housing. That is the complete opposite of what you are saying. This would be wonderful for builders. It would mean … wait for it … they could build more. Look, you are entitled to your opinions on housing (no matter how often they contradict the established science) but you have no business misrepresenting someones position.
Yes, the addition of lots of new housing would upset some landlords. Of course it would. They would have competition. Just like when a coffee shop sees another coffee shop go up across the street. Well guess what? Tough shit. You will have to charge less than thought. Somehow the landlords in other cities who have seen lower rents (like in Minneapolis) deal with it just fine.
@tacomee
Social housing is not the same as capital-A Affordable Housing (which is, as you note, extremely expensive), and the funding source (payroll tax) has already passed. I’m not pollyannish about the idea but I hope that they succeed.
The idea behind social housing is that it’s mixed-income housing serving up to 120% of AMI (132k for a 1-person household, 189k for a 4-person household). The higher-income rental units would be market rate and would be used to subsidize the lower-income rental units. Because the social housing developer can access financing at lower rates (via bonds) and does not require high returns (due to regular income from the payroll tax), it does not need as much rental income from its tenants.
The social housing developer would not be the only source of housing; market-rate housing would continue to be built by market-rate builders.
“I’m not pollyannish about the idea but I hope that they succeed.”
This is right. We need to throw everything we have at this housing crisis. The primary reason is the incredible damage that it’s doing to those who are forced onto our sidewalks and into our parks and woods. The trauma and incredible cost of mitigating or reversing that damage leaves a huge scar on society and our budgets.
But those experiencing homelessness and those teetering on the brink because of the sky-rocketing cost of rent and and a mortgage, negatively impact nearly all aspects of a functioning society. Fencing and locking of our public spaces, and failure to invest in more. People sheltering in our transit spaces and vehicles, decreasing ridership and investment. The perception of more dangerous streets leading people to hide behind the barriers of steel and glass, rather that walking through our cities and taking transit.
So:
– Yes to social housing.
– Yes to affordable housing
– Yes to permanent supportive housing
– Yes to removing exclusionary zoning
– Yes to decreasing regulations
– Yes to overriding the “neighbor character” veto
– Yes to building high, mid and low
– Yes to building for the rich and the middle class
– Yes to building for the poor.
We need all of the above, and anything else we can think of to solve this emergency, because it’s an existential threat to our cities.
I agree Cam. Well put.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, Cam.
Bruce Harrell’s response to the housing crisis has been tepid, and he continues to put the interests of his wealthiest donors before the interests of the city. He won’t solve this crisis. Katie Wilson has a promising multi-pronged approach.
Cam Solomon,
We can say “yes” to anything. The problem is paying for it. Would you shut down all the remaining Sound Transit rail projects to funnel more money into housing? I would. Real solutions cost real money. People on this board trash Mayor Bruce… but then the mayor has to live in reality…. Running Seattle is not like running an imaginary outfit like Seattle Subway or Transit Rider’s Union. As soon as we stop putting price tags on things…. why, anything is possible!
[Removed because it contained a complete misrepresentation of a candidate’s position. The author was warned about such lies but continued to write them.]
And if you think homelessness is bad in Greater Seattle now, wait 20 years. A big chunk of residents in the city are single, renting and not making 100K per year. People who are smart with their money buy a home to hedge against inflation and save 15% or so of their income. At retirement age the mortgage is paid off and hopefully there’s enough savings to last through the “Golden Years”
Where does renting in a high cost city like Seattle leave you at 65? You’ve paid a big chunk of money you should have saved as rent increases …. and you owe rent for every month until you die. Your Social Security check won’t even cover the rent in Seattle. Where on earth are these people going to live? Under the freeway is the answer I’m afraid.
tacomee you are strawmanning Katie Wilson with falseties, ignoring her solutions which either need little/no funding or are already funded, meanwhile you are defending this guy here:
https://theneedling.com/2025/04/22/why-a-man-who-pointed-a-gun-at-a-pregnant-woman-over-a-parking-spot-is-the-transit-hero-seattle-needs/
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/03/19/op-ed-bruce-harrells-long-history-of-covering-for-abusers/
https://www.kuow.org/stories/i-share-your-disgust-text-messages-show-seattle-mayor-harrell-rich-neighbor-discussing-denny-blaine
https://theneedling.com/2025/03/28/why-a-man-who-threatened-city-staff-investigating-wage-theft-at-his-mens-only-club-is-the-labor-hero-seattle-needs/
We can say “yes” to anything. The problem is paying for it.
Changing the zoning costs nothing. In fact the government would end up with *more* money.
But Ms. Wilson hates the evil developers
Bullshit! It is exactly the opposite. Stop lying about her position. Seriously tacomee, that will not be tolerated. You can not misrepresent someone’s position with falsehoods in that manner and expect to stay on the blog. It is one thing to say you don’t like their position but to claim they are taking the exact opposite position is a clear violation of comment policy. It would be like saying Bruce Harrell wants to defund the police. It is simply not true — in fact it is the opposite. Repeatedly making false claims about someone when you have been corrected multiple times is asking for trouble.
[Removed because it contained a complete misrepresentation of a candidate’s position. The author was warned about such lies but continued to write them.]
tacommee I’m not sure you’re worth debating because of your underhanded tactics like strawmanning and disdain for nuance, but I’ll try a bit more:
-“Katie hates developers and landlords” strawman. Working against somebody’s interests in some cases (but not all cases) is not the same as hating them. You injected that emotion which is unsupported and distorts the conversation.
-“she’s all in on 5% rent control”
Wilson’s website: ” I’ll work to strengthen Seattle’s economic displacement relocation assistance law to discourage rent increases larger than 5 percent.” That’s not a ban, that’s fees, which is far from your earlier false claim that ” She wants total rent control”
-“no late fees for late payment and no evection for non-payment”
Source?
-“Katie believes the evil landlords are using AI to jack up rents”
Algorithmic rent control is a real thing that actually increases rent compared to other cities while keeping more units vacant, and should count as a violation of the 1890 US Sherman Act against price fixing. And you injected the strawman word evil again. Source: https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent
-“It’s all the evil developers fault!” Hyperbolic strawmanning. Also demonstrably false, as she explains in her recent video about why a slice of pizza costs so much.
-“Either you’re pro development and free market…. or you’re not. ” Attacking nuance. There are middle grounds between 100% unregulated free market and state controlled housing. For example, Katie Wilson wants to zone for more housing and reduce red tape to developers. You keep ignoring that and using this underhanded tactic of saying that Wilson “hates developers and landlords” just because she wants to increase some (not all) regulations.
You, tacommee, are acting poorly.
Tacomee, either you are going to fall in line and praise Wilson, or you are on the road to being banned. If you want to criticize Wilson, this is the wrong blog for that. She is off limits. However, criticizing Harrell is ok. Remaining silent about Wilson is also ok.
But, banning you for criticizing a favored candidate is a bad look, so some other excuses will be used, like you are misrepresenting, or strawmanning, or violating some other commenting rule.
As someone who hasn’t been following the mayor’s race very closely yet, but has this crazy idea that increasing housing supply will lower housing prices, tacomee has really got me convinced: Katie Wilson just might be my candidate! Thanks, tacomee. I couldn’t have done it without your shrill, uncited, bizarre rants!
Tacomee, either you are going to fall in line and praise Wilson, or you are on the road to being banned. If you want to criticize Wilson, this is the wrong blog for that. She is off limits.
Bullshit! Stop trolling, Sam. What the hell is wrong with people. There is nothing at all wrong with criticizing Wilson. But lying about her policies is wrong. It is that simple.
Just look at the latest comment:
Katie hates developers
Total lie! It is the complete opposite. Her policies are pro-developer! I’ve pointed that out several times and it is getting tiresome. I’ve warned Tacomee many times. Time to break out the scissors.
OK, I edited this out as best I could. Look, tacommee, it is fairly simple. Feel free to criticize social housing. Feel free to criticize a candidate’s positions. But you can’t make up bullshit about a candidate (or any public figure) and expect it to be acceptable here. That would be like me saying Bruce Harrell is a strong supporter of Donald Trump. Of course that is total bullshit. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a crazy idea and in fact plenty of evidence to support the opposite.
“We can say “yes” to anything. The problem is paying for it.”
I can assure you that it is far, far cheaper to keep people housed than it is to allow them to fall into homelessness and then try to fix the damage. Ignoring the traumatic human impacts, which alone should be enough reason to fund any and all initiatives, supportive housing is far more expensive than market-rate housing. The social services are incredibly expensive to attempt to bring a person back to a place where they can again house themselves. The costs and time commitments for public safety officers and HEAL teams. The impacts on the justice system. The impacts on our schools, with the growing proportion of homeless youth. The decimation of potential and the impact on future contributions to our shared society. There is just no comparison.
We in the Pacific Northwest are one of the richest regions in the world. We also profess to be one of the most compassionate. We should be looked at as the model for housing our population.
Instead, we are a disgrace.
As an ardent Wilson supporter, I have to beg that the ad hom stuff against Harrell above, that has nothing to do with this blog’s topics, not be given oxygen here. Put out the fire of the hateful politics of personal destruction.
“And if you think homelessness is bad in Greater Seattle now, wait 20 years. A big chunk of residents in the city are single, renting and not making 100K per year. People who are smart with their money buy a home to hedge against inflation and save 15% or so of their income. At retirement age the mortgage is paid off and hopefully there’s enough savings to last through the “Golden Years”
You state the problem but rather than trying to help find a solution you tell people to move away and buy a house somewhere. The part about houses being a hedge and retirement is not practical when houses are over $500K and you’d be paying a mortgage and property taxes for the rest of your live. Many people couldn’t afford even a $200K house in some states, or don’t like long-term debt, or having their choices limited by the house debt, or buying a house they may lose their investment in if it they lose their job and can’t make the payments or it gets destroyed in an insurance-exclude disaster or they get a high-cost medical condition.
Beyond that, how would they get around in those car-dependent places where lower-cost houses exist if they don’t drive, can’t drive, or don’t want to drive? Those cities also tend to have wider stroads that are usafe to cross as a pedestrian, and the strip malls with huge parking lots can be soul-crushing. Some people aren’t up to all the work of yard maintenance and maintaining a house, and the maintenance expenses have to be added to house costs. People with children can pass the hose down to them, but people without children may have nobody to give it to.
“Where on earth are these people going to live? Under the freeway is the answer I’m afraid.”
I know several friends who have recently chosen to retire in Tacoma. Our region still has areas that are more affordable — particularly if someone isn’t commuting to work like a retiree.
Sorry if I ruffled ant feathers,
On the political topic….. I don’t believe Wilson or Harrell are any good for the housing crisis. Harrell courts the NIMBY vote that doesn’t want anything to change and Wilson supports radical rent control (starting at freezing rent hikes at 5% per year), She also has a long history of bashing big capitalists of every stripe and hue…. starting with housing developers.
Where Katie goes wrong is the idea that developers need Seattle and the Seattle government could throttle the housing industries profits and still increase the amount of housing. I’m afraid the developers would just take their toys (and money) and move on. There’s absolutely zero room for socialism in the housing industry. I know because I worked for these fuckers my whole life…. the builders, the banks, property managers…. it’s the Wild West with these people. Capitalism at it’s worst and best…..
On the homeless and housing topic.
The “problem” Seattle has with housing is the 1000+ people who move to Seattle every month. Think about it. It’s relentless and impossible to keep up or stop. In order to keep up with growth…. Seattle needs to add something like $400,000,000 worth of new housing every month. Neither Bruce nor Katie are going to ever talk any numbers during the mayor’s race because the numbers and ruthlessly bad for anybody who doesn’t make 100K a year. I’m not telling anybody how to live their life, but Seattle is tough on lower income folks…. moving on would be a smart choice for a lot people.
There’s only like 13 places Liberals want to live in the USA and it’s a free Country. Places like Seattle, Bozeman MT., Park City UT. New York City and San Francisco are reserved for those with wealth (and a servant class that has no chance at generational wealth). Money talks and Bullshit walks, so any political candidate who says they have a plan to lower housing prices is lying. The Mayor does not control the housing market, the cost of land, the price of building materials and the number of people who want to move someplace.
As a guy who has worked in the building trades for most of my life….Seattle builders are content to build housing at the current rate (below peak of pre-COVID) and get a maximum profit for that. Keeping demand above supply is the unspoken agreement.
On the social housing front…. it’s certainly a concept worth exploring. I’m all for changing zoning to allow different types of housing…. I’d like to see some sort of co-op housing where a group of “owner-investors” get City help finding the land and builders to build privately financed, owner occupied housing (townhomes or condos). My semi-professional guess is you’d need 6-12 “owner-investors” with say, $100k in cash and another 4000k in credit per family to get a project moving.
As far as public money for some sort of “social housing” where you only pay what you can afford on some sort of sliding scale, ah no. We could debate the merits of a plan all day long, but the math makes this sort of thing impossible. Pumping 50 million dollars a year into a social housing project doesn’t move the needle on housing. House Our Neighbors will never have the funds to build more than 200 units of housing a year. It’s not something anybody should get excited about. The housing market is billions and billions of investment…. 50 million here or there doesn’t make a difference.
Any politician pumping social housing as a solution is a likely charlatan. Where are the numbers for the first 3 years of social housing House Our Neighbors are supposed to be planning? If you really think social housing is a solution, tell Katie Wilson and Tiffani McCoy you want a plan with actual numbers with it. If the Urbanist wants to be a grownup news outlet…. call Tiffani McCoy and ask for the plan. Isn’t it the media’s job to hold people accountable?
Where Katie goes wrong is the idea that developers need Seattle and the Seattle government could throttle the housing industries profit
Again, with the bullshit. I honestly don’t know what your problem is. It is fairly simple. Her policies would help developers. I mean how did you miss that, given it was item number one! That is the whole point! Help the developers build more housing by easing the regulations. If I was a developer I would be thrilled if her policies got adopted.
I am getting tired of your constant set of lies. Enough already.
Ross Bleakney,
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/05/15/op-ed-five-ways-to-lower-rents-in-seattle/
So out of Ms. Wilson’s 5 ways to lower rent, there’s only one that the housing industry agrees with…. cutting regulations around building. One is “social housing” with no timeline or price tag and the other 3 are rent control measures in one way or another,
From the op-ed in the Urbanist…
“In Seattle, 56% of households are renters, and far too many of us are paying 40%, 50%, or even more of our income in housing costs every month. That’s a recipe for stress, evictions, and rising homelessness. Oh yeah, and it’s making our pizza more expensive, too! City leaders have the power to ease the pain, all it takes is some political will.”
This is just crazy! Ms. Wilson is implying, as mayor, she’ll have power over a billion dollar rental market. You really think Harrell doesn’t want more affordable housing? And every City Council person?
It all comes back to the 1,000 +++ people moving to Seattle every month. No mayor can stop or control that. Shit, Ross, half of greater L.A was destroyed by a fire….. taking the fat insurance check and moving to Seattle would look good if I was in their shoes. But it makes it harder for those lower income people who are already in Seattle…. barely getting by.
I’m out of here for the rest of the month , but to any young person living in Seattle, paying 50% of their income in rent and wondering what the future is…. It’s not the Transit Riders Union. There’s no easy political solution to economic problems. Ever heard of Ball State? Great college in Muncie Indiana.. Home town to the painter Bob Ross! His museum is nothing short of awesome. https://www.minnetrista.net/bobrossexperience
And here’s a house a school teacher or carpenter could afford! https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/619-W-Ashland-Ave_Muncie_IN_47303_M31257-98668
Or you could stay put and let Seattle just slowly beat you down. Remember, the homeless didn’t plan on ending up that way! I’d guess many of them didn’t have much of a plan at all.
Have a good couple of weeks everybody.
“Wilson supports radical rent control (starting at freezing rent hikes at 5% per year)”
5% is radical? Jeez, 5% is very lucrative. First, is it including inflation or on top of it? Inflation is volatile right now but it has been hovering around 3% the past couple years, so with a 5% increase the net gain would be 2%. Meanwhile the cost-of-living increases built into people’s annual salary increases are at inflation. so 3%. If they get anything on top of that, it’s for increasing responsibilities or seniority or extraordinary performance — something only a few people get, not something everybody across the board can count on. Yet landlords want 2% on top of inflation across the board on all properties?
In what other sector would this be normal? Food prices don’t go up 2% or 5% above inflation year after year every year except when there’s a supply shortage. Transit fares don’t go up 2% or 5% above inflation every year. Nor do books or movie tickets or clothes or toilet paper or symphony tickets or online subscriptions. Yet somehow it’s normal for rents to do that? Even though housing is a basic necessity?
If it goes up 5% a year, that’s 50% in ten years plus compounding. That’s a rapid decrease in people’s purchasing power and is unsustainable. Making it so that only ever-wealthier people can live in apartments or in cities is a like pyramid scheme. Every percent forces more people into homelessness or moving far away.
Of course the rate ceiling must accommodate inflation, and one or two percent above that may be reasonable. But saying rents can go up as fast as they did between 2012 and 2019 isn’t reasonable.
Katie’s 5 proposals and their impact on developers:
1. Zone for Abundant Housing. Developers say “Hell yeah” and pour into profitable projects that weren’t allowed before. It’s not developers blocking the upzones, it’s nimbys. If an upzone causes developers to shift some of their investments from single-family/4-plex to multifamily, that’s a win for both developers and residents. (More money for the developer, more housing units for would-be residents, less citywide rent increases than there would be without that many units.)
2. Build social housing. This is a good idea in general, and the one tacomee was least opposed to.
3. Ban algorthmic price-fixing. Monopoly practices and price-fixing collusion are already illegal, so this is just enforcing reasonable standards.
4. Regulate rental junk fees. It all depends on the thresholds. Is it reasonable to charge a $75 fee to deliver a late notice? That’s like charging a $25-50 fee each time a check gets rejected, which is also unreasonable, and is only allowed because of corrupt politicians paid by the powerful banking lobby.(It’s worse for checks because the same check can go through several times over a few days, charging a double-digit fee each time, and unscrupulous banks apply all the day’s checks before they apply the the day’s deposits, generating rejections that only occur because of the order the transactions were processed).
5. Disincentivize large rent hikes. A 5% ceiling is very reasonable. With the caveat that it should be raised whenever inflation is above 4%. There’s an even more general principle: the ceiling should reflect the tradeoff needs of tenants and owners. Not one-sided in favor of allowing owners to make a killer windfall at the expense of tenants.
The only reason owners are able to get away with such large increases is there’s a housing shortage. Tacomee, who usually denies there’s a shortage, today says, “Let’s say Seattle is adding 1,000 people a month currently and for near future. (it’s actually adding more!)” Well, then, we need 1,000 more units a month. And maybe 200-500 more to make up for the backlog we’ve accumulated since 2003.
When do the price of eggs spike? Why, when there’s a pandemic and bird flu that causes a severe shortage of eggs and/or egg-processing workers. When do rents spike? Not in ordinary years in a healthy market, and not when the “AMI (average median income)” rises as some say. It rises when the vacancy rate gets low (less than 5%), and faster when it’s extremely low (less than 2%). That’s the definition of a shortage.
So out of Ms. Wilson’s 5 ways to lower rent, there’s only one that the housing industry agrees with…. cutting regulations around building.
Yes. It is the cornerstone of her editorial. It is the first item for that reason. To quote:
While zoning for more housing won’t automatically make rents affordable for the lowest-income residents — we need other strategies for that — for those of us spending far too much of our income on market rate rents, it really does make a difference.
This is in line with every economic study. Zoning (and other regulations) are the problem. It is by far the biggest reason rent is so high in Seattle. It is the biggest reason that condos or townhouses are so expensive. The only way out is to have a big construction boom. But a boom in market rate housing won’t make rents affordable for lowest-income people. We have always needed other strategies.
This is the only thing that effects developers and it is huge. Yet you have ignored it. It would be like saying “There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about the government limiting free speech.” Obviously this is false just like your statements are false. But if you skip that first amendment then it looks like they just care.
She is for increasing regulations on landlords and decreasing them for developers. If you want to put it in your oversimplified, hyperbolic manner she is pro-developer and anti-landlord. Fine.
Even without any additional regulations on landlords this would be true. The more that developers build the less a landlord can charge. The more restrictive the zoning the more landlords benefit.
I really don’t care about the regulations on landlords if we can ease the regulations. That is by far the most important issue. Just go through the other ones:
2. More social housing. Not the least bit controversial. It won’t solve the problem but it will help.
3. Ban Algorithmic Price Fixing. Hard to say if this will make any difference at all but again, it certainly won’t hurt.
4. Regulate Rental Junk Fees. This seems like common sense “truth in advertising” regulations. It is like hotels charging a “pool fee” even if you never use the pool. All that should be up front. This should actually benefit landlords who don’t practice those sorts of things.
5. Disincentivize Large Rent Hikes. This is a variation on rent control. The law already exists now — hard to say it will make much difference. It depends on how the regulations are actually written.
There is another aspect of this which you are ignoring. It is really bizarre given your obsession with home ownership. The first item (Zone for Abundant Housing) effects housing that is rented or bought. But if the other policies discourage the construction of rental property they will simply build more condos and townhouses. If the regulations on landlords go overboard and they are building too many condos and not enough apartments then they can simply roll back some of the changes. Once something is built it can easily go from one to the other. The main thing we need is more places to live.
As I no longer live in Seattle, I can’t have any meaningful opinion about the mayoral election. However, in the time I did live there, I noticed the “use progressive candidate to split the left-leaning vote and ensure a fiscally conservative executive takes the helm” technique used multiple times to great effect. My uneducated guess is that this election will feature a repeat performance.
I lean left still, if only in ideals, so this hardly makes me happy, but I am honestly not sure how Seattle gets around it. Best of luck to those of you who reside there still.
Lest anyone think I am tacomee’s alt, I would also like to comment that I don’t think home ownership is that much of a guarantee nowadays – no one paying property taxes should consider themselves secure. Strongtowns.org has more details, but in short, most (if not all) cities in America are functionally bankrupt, and desperately trying to dig themselves out of the hole to continue providing the level of services their residents expect. Either the property taxes go up – by vote or by fiat – or the level of services plummet. And the vultures ever continue to circle… my parents are facing a de-facto eviction from their paid-off mobile home as rent fees are due to double. And my sister-in-law, who owns a more traditional home, is constantly complaining about the increase in tax, which she struggles to pay as a single mom. Her current solution to this seems to be going back to dating a man of means whom she dumped in the past, and miking him for all he’s worth. And a friend of mine who bought a home at the edge of their income level, in the cheapest city in the state, nearly destroyed her marriage due to the stress of home maintenance costs – they seem OK now, but she’s developed a chronic illness in the process… and she reports that her sister is now in the same situation.
The younger generation has entered a time in which the old guarantees are hardly worth the paper they’re theoretically written on. With no ground beneath their feet anymore, I can only advise them to keep on swimming.
I’d end this on a more positive note, but I can hear the baby crying. Back later perhaps!
in the time I did live there, I noticed the “use progressive candidate to split the left-leaning vote and ensure a fiscally conservative executive takes the helm” technique used multiple times to great effect.
It may actually be the opposite. I was joking with my wife: All we need is a snow storm and it will be a repeat of 2009. Just a little background here about the three main candidates back then:
Greg Nickels: Solid, experienced and quite capable mayor who had worked his way up to the position. Considered a clear favorite until he bungled a snowstorm. (In his defense the snow stuck around a lot longer than usual and I for one loved the snow.) Nickels had also lost support from the left because of the collapse of the monorail (and the Stranger blaming him for it).
Joe Mallahan. No government experience. He had some community organizing experience (mostly in Chicago) but otherwise just ran on his business experience and relatively moderate platform.
Mike McGinn. Outsider leftist candidate. No government experience but some community organizing experience.
Nickels (the incumbent) ended up in third after the primary. Then McGinn beat Mallahan. It is quite possible that neither candidate could have beat Nickels in a head-to-head race.
This election is looking quite similar at this point. Harrell is Nickels. Wilson is McGinn and Mallahan is … well … Mallahan. Yes, it is the same guy.
But it also wouldn’t surprise me if Harrell coasts. Despite lackluster support in the polling I have to assume that Harrell is reasonably popular (since he hasn’t had any major screw-ups). He does have weaknesses on policy, specifically housing. I think if there was a vote right now about zoning (e. g. “Should Seattle approve the zoning code of Spokane?”) the city would be a lot less conservative than what he has proposed. But I’m not sure if that translates into votes for representatives. I think experience matters. I’ve communicated with Wilson and she does seem quite intelligent and reasonable — I just wish she had more experience. If she had served on the council (or been an aid to a mayor) then I would be more excited about her chances (not only of winning but of being a good mayor).
“The “problem” Seattle has with housing is the 1000+ people who move to Seattle every month.”
Yes that’s the demand problem. Housing is needed. However, Seattle is growing faster than a number of surrounding cities already — partly due to a more supportive densification strategy.
There is also the supply problem, which is a limit on easily developable land. Seattle is on an isthmus surrounded by water with mountains further out.
The crazy thing is that we are now building many miles outward with light rail. Suburban areas are getting new, premium transit service. Bellevue will have more light rail stations per capita than Seattle will. Shoreline has more stations per capita today.
It’s admirable to just density the central core with 40 story apartment buildings. But we need satellite density and satellite destinations too. Some cities get this but many haven’t fully taken it to heart and havent steered zoning, parking pricing and investments to make it happen a half-mile out from each new Link station.
I’ve wondered how station areas would look if a city had to “earn” a minimum number of average weekday boardings in order to get a new Link station. What would be different if a city had to put lots more energy into building ridership through better land uses rather than into obsess with mitigating the impacts?
Schell, Nickels, and McGinn were all good mayors who deserved more terms.
Schell lost when the public put unrealistic expectations on him during the WTO drama.
Nickels lost when the public suddenly changed its mind during the snowstorm and abandoned “save the fish” (don’t salt the roads) and “keep your posession minimal” (don’t buy more snowplows when they’d only be used for a few days every few years). People suddenly demanded to go out as if there’s no snow rather than waiting for the snow to melt as they’d done in previous years.
McGinn lost in a three-way race with Murray and I forget the third. The Stranger endorsed an up-and-coming person in the 2014 primary (again I forget who). Many people including myself followed The Stranger’s advice thinking McGinn was sure to get the other slot and then we could reevaluate them in the final. But too many people did that and McGinn came in third and was out.
Since then I haven’t been satisfied with any of the following mayors. Murray, Durkan, and Harrell just haven’t championed transit and urbanism issues like I’d want a mayor to or as much as I thought they would.
The McGinn-Mallahan race was over the 99 tunnel. McGinn supported a boulevard+transit alternative. Mallahan sided with drivers and supported the tunnel. The majority preferred McGinn. I don’t want to judge Mallahan solely on his position in 2010, but it’s one issue that makes me wonder if I can trust him, so I’ll be looking to see what he’s like now and how much he sides with SOV drivers and nimbys.
Or was it Nickels who lost the three-way primary like Ross said? That would have been the 2009 election. It’s so long ago I don’t remember exactly. But I know The Stranger threw one of the races by not supporting a good incumbent who came in third, and that diminished my trust in The Stranger’s endorsements ever since.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/sound-transit-light-rails-impossible-time-horizons/
I think the most frustrating things about the East Link 3 year delay are:
1. There was no new tunneling required. It pretty much is a replacement of an existing road for the delayed segment. That really implies that more ambitious plans with massive land acquisitions, high bridges and deep new underground tracks and stations could be subject to much longer delays. Except for floating bridge design, this project segment should have been simple and fast.
2. The anticipated 2023 opening date was just 15 months away when the first major delay was announced. It was since moved 2-3 times now. The public has never truly seen ST clearly place blame on itself and take corrective action , seemingly giving a free pass to accepting future delays casually.
3. ST is lobbying for a 75-year bond capability. That’s truly nuts! Most of our lifetime of ST taxes will be just to pay interest if ST actually does this! And most people in the first grade will have died before the end of the period.
1. Yes, I agree. Despite the bridge design I get the feeling this could have happened anywhere. That is what is frustrating. There is a tricky aspect to putting the tracks on the bridge but that wasn’t the issue. The installers just messed up. (Someone can correct me if I’m wrong here.) In contrast if they make tentative plans and find that the soil isn’t what they expected it is understandable that they could have a delay.
3. I agree. That is asking for trouble.
ST messed up with a failed attempt at remote inspection.
But someone needed to put on the big-boy mask, and go do their job making sure the contractors were meeting specs. This failure was costly. I’m still not sure if ST or the contractor is paying for the redo.
Granted, the CDC kept the value of N95 masks from the public, until the general masking requirements came down.
Imagine if Forward Thrust was approved. Would have been heavily paid by Feds and paid off long ago too. Thanks to the shortsighted voters then we didn’t get the system then had to fund an inferior system generations later at great expense per person.
Agreed. One of the biggest mistakes we’ve ever made. I put running the freeway through the city as the worst mistake. Second is failing to pass Forward Thrust. Third is losing the Sonics.
50.8 % of the voters in 1968 voted to pass the rapid transit initiative. I place the blame more on the powers-that-be that required a 60% supermajority for the initiative to pass.
I agree Ralph. Requiring a supermajority was a really bad idea. For what it is worth my list doesn’t try to pinpoint blame.
For example, consider the Sonics. Obviously Schultz is to blame and the city could have done more to keep the team. But the owners are to blame as well. They didn’t have to approve the move. Mark Cuban actually voted against the move for financial reasons (why move from a big and growing market to a tiny one?). Paul Allen also voted against it. Of course the biggest problem with the NBA is that it is an unregulated monopoly. So some of the blame goes to the government as well. A board (who looks at franchises moving) would have shot down that idea right off the bat. They were basically extorting the city, forcing them to build a new arena or move. This is exactly why the NBA (and other major sports franchises) should be regulated. This is very different than say, the move from Baltimore to Washington DC (DC is bigger and not that far away).
Sports teams are private business monopolies. Why should Seattle subsidize the Sonics or try to keep it? If you like basketball, there are other teams on TV.
Why should Seattle subsidize the Sonics or try to keep it?
Same reason people support any of the arts. It is just much better in person. I agree that the NBA is a monopoly and should be properly regulated, but absent that it makes sense for cities to support various entertainment options.
The official city population estimates are in for 2024 from the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2025/vintage-2024-popest.html
Seattle was #9 in numerical population growth nationally. They say that Seattle added almost 17K more residents in just one year. That’s a return to the pre-Covid annual increases of many of the 2010 years. They estimate Seattle’s population at 780,995 as of 2024. In the 2020 Census, Seattle had 737,020. That’s an increase of almost 44K new residents since April 1, 2020.
The full list of Washington state cities is here:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2024/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2024-POP-53.xlsx
By my calculations Seattle is fourth in terms of increase per area (or increase in density). Here are the top five in terms of new residents per square kilometer (and total increase):
Mountlake Terrace: 136 per km² (1,427 total increase)
Shoreline: 124 per km² (3,724 total increase)
Duvall: 83 per km² (523 total increase)
Seattle: 77 per km² (16,813 total increase)
Kirkland: 46.1 per km² (3,238 total increase)
From what I can tell Seattle is adding more people per area than the surrounding suburbs (despite the high numbers from Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline). In other words, Seattle is increasing density faster than its suburbs.
Oops. I just realized I ran those numbers for just one year. I’ll do it again for five years (a much more meaningful amount).
OK, here is what it looks like for the last five years. Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline are still at the top. Seattle is still top ten but a lot of smaller cities have jumped in front:
Mountlake Terrace: 373 per km² (3,912)
Shoreline: 247 per km² (7,431)
Ridgefield: 236 per km² (4,487)
Sultan: 215 per km² (1,834)
Winlock: 206 per km² (681)
Redmond: 206 per km² (8,821)
Seattle: 186 per km² (40,395)
Again I believe Seattle is adding density faster than the surrounding suburbs (in the last five years).
Looking at one year is great! Covid did wonky things to trends between 2020 and 2022. It’s the post Covid trends that are most telling. Two years may be good.
The first ring of new housing around Othello Station is 6 floors. A new 8-story building is going up a block south. Another 8-story building south of that one is on the way. Will the next ring of new housing be 10 stories?
Only if the city upzones further. 8-10 stories is really going from lowrise to midrise, and the city has been very reluctant to do so beyond a couple buildings at the center or major urban villages. Othello is not a major village. Mt Baker is the urban center in Rainier Valley, so it would happen there first. But Mt Baker was just upzoned and it was mediocre. So it would require a change of direction by the city council and mayor, and I don’t see that happening, since the new comprehensive plan is also mediocre.
There is also a limit to how high you can build with wood construction (although new techniques are pushing that limit). That is why even without zoning you would not get a lot of ten story buildings. It is too high for wood construction and yet not worth it for steel.
“Mt Baker was just upzoned and it was mediocre.”
The Mt Baker station zoning has many blocks at a 95 foot height limit and one block at 145 feet. That’s significantly taller than many other areas of Seattle including Ballard and even parts of North Capitol Hill.
Height limits are sometimes affected by nearby ladder fire truck equipment. I don’t know if that’s a factor in Seattle.
If that’s mediocre, then pretty much most of the Seattle height restrictions outside of Downtown, Furst Hill and LQA/ SLU are mediocre.
One of my previous comments got me thinking. While I would like to see the bus routes surrounding the RapidRide G overhauled (with something like this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2023/08/30/high-frequency-network-surrounding-rapidride-g/) I wonder what an iterative approach would be. I’m thinking something like this:
1) First add a southbound bus stop on 15th between Thomas and John (next to the Safeway here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XQrjd82nbs1gg6QC6). Basically make that right lane a BAT lane along with a bus stop. Some buses turn right on John, other buses keep going straight. This would be quite valuable right now as riders in this area are stuck with a messy situation. They aren’t sure which bus stop to walk to. Sometimes you want to catch the 10 along 15th (just north of Thomas). Other times you want to catch the bus on Thomas (just east of 15th). You can check OneBusAway but you really shouldn’t have to since both buses are going to the same place. Add a bus stop and things get better immediately.
2) Add BAT lanes on Denny and otherwise make the 8 faster. Should probably be the first priority for this area (if not the entire city if not the county) but it would cost a lot more and take a lot more effort than just adding a bus stop.
3) Split the 10 and 12 at Thomas. You lose a tiny bit of coverage but increase frequency to an important section of Capitol Hill. The coverage loss is minimal as riders can easily walk to Madison, 15th or Thomas (you are never that far away from a bus stop). Riders heading to and from Kaiser would have reliable ten minutes headways (with the combined 10/12) along with occasionally being able to catch the 11 (all from the same bus stop). You wouldn’t have a mess like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uaLxQYz8gTaaLVqk8. I cherry picked this example, but still. That is a fifteen minute wait and you still aren’t 100% sure you picked the right bus stop. If the 10 is a couple minutes late you would have been better off using the bus stop for the 11. This is for one of the most common trips anyone would every take by transit.
4) Get rid of the tail of 4 that only operates every half hour (from 23rd & Jefferson to Walker & Rainier). Every 4 would end at Garfield High (23rd & Jefferson). With no tail of the 4, get rid of the run which currently goes from from downtown to that tail. Replace it by running the 3 every fifteen minutes (instead of every half hour). Everything would basically be the same but Summit would get fifteen minute service (while the 4 would lose its tail).
5) Straighten the 60. This would likely be controversial but we really can’t have a bus weaving its way around First Hill given that just about all of First Hill is now a major destination. Just run straight on Broadway.
6) Increase fares on the streetcars to match the buses. Put the extra money into running the First Hill Streetcar as often as the 60. Synchronize them for service along Broadway every six minutes most of the day.
7) Move the 2 (as described in my other above). Would take some work to do it right (and avoid congestion) but clearly they aren’t currently doing it right now so I guess that could happen later. Moving the 2 means more buses from Pike/Pine to downtown, which sets up the next step:
8) Truncate the 60 at Beacon Hill (so that it runs from Westwood Village to Beacon Hill). Now combine the northern part of the current 60 with the 49 (so the 49 would be running from Beacon Hill to the U-District via Broadway). This would actually save service hours even though the 49 would now be running as often as the 60.
I could keep going but you get the idea. It is somewhat surprising to me how many changes can be made independently or at the very least iteratively. You could stop at various points here (or only implement a change in the middle) and still end up with a much better system.
I wouldn’t call the current system bad. It just needs rethinking once ALL of the other transit and street investments open, including 2 Line with Judkins Park.
I understand that others think Judkins Park’s opening is not important, but I think it is. Plus, the 23rd Ave entrance is like introducing a new transit station opportunity that has not previously existed. But just as important than that is that Judkins Park to IDS will take only about 3 minutes, and a Westlake will just take about 8. Once riders figure that out, the Route 7 and 106 ridership through the ID should notably drop. Route 14 ridership will drop a tad too. Those 3000 new apartments around Judkins Park Station will create more localized demand and I’d not be surprised if the neighborhood gets lots more retail.
Add to that is the City’s deliberate addition of several new stop signs on both Pike and Pine Street west of 14th Ave. It’s much slower of a bus journey than it was just 6 years ago. Today it’s almost a pedestrian mall with local traffic access preferred rather than a fast way for buses to go between Downtown and the Central District. It’s very different than it was in 2016.
Having ridden Route 60 from Madison and Dakota, it’s clear that the route moves very slowly through lower First Hill. However much of that appears to be because there is high usage in lower First Hill. It’s the only direct route to use between SE Seattle and First Hill including Harborview and O’Dea by the way.
The Harborview area in particular deserves better thought. The drop of the First Hill station was not adequately compensated by the FHSC nor RapidRide G, and that’s especially true with Yesler Terrace development.
Metro staff has their hands full planning and adjusting large swaths of East King and South King this next year . These Link extensions are certainly more impactful to the bus structures in these areas.
So I’d suggest looking to consider a central area restructuring starting no earlier than 18 months from now. By then, Judkins Park should be open several months — and no other major street nor transit projects will be underway to affect the area.
Finally, I hope Metro will approach it differently than in the past, and look at a wide variety of approaches. Metro tends to develop one preferred scenario and tweaks it based on feedback. In this case the first round of route structure proposals could be varied because there are so many trip patterns going on and they vary widely by time of day and day of week as well.
I understand that others think Judkins Park’s opening is not important, but I think it is.
It is definitely important but I don’t think it changes the dynamic that much. Those are two different issues. It will make a huge difference to the folks close enough to walk to the station. It will make a huge difference to those headed to the East Side from much of Rainier Valley and the Central Area. But it doesn’t call for restructure (other than the 8) because we already have buses running on those corridors. For example I would love to see the 48 running every ten minutes. There is a strong case for it even before Judkins Park. But Judkins Park just adds to it. But that doesn’t mean that the route should change nor does it explain where we get the money for that other than the type of changes I’m proposing. It is all good and well to say “Judkins Park is huge” but to maximize the potential requires a more efficient network.
Add to that is the City’s deliberate addition of several new stop signs on both Pike and Pine Street west of 14th Ave. It’s much slower of a bus journey than it was just 6 years ago.
That doesn’t really matter. No matter what, people are headed that way. Often the most productive corridors also happen to be the slowest (e. g. the 8). Of course we should try to make the buses run faster but unlike the 3/4 and James (by the freeway) there is really no alternative.
Metro staff has their hands full planning and adjusting large swaths of East King and South King this next year . These Link extensions are certainly more impactful to the bus structures in these areas.
The plans for East Link are done. A restructure in this area could impact more riders than whatever they do around Federal Way Link simply because it would effect more riders. It would be different if they were talking about changing the RapidRide A but clearly they aren’t (nor should they be). Overall the changes for Federal Way Link will be pretty minor compared to what I’m proposing in an area that has way more potential riders.
Agree to disagree.
Note that between a 15 minute Route 48 and a 15 minute Route 8, 23rd will have buses every 7.5 minutes on average between Yesler and the Judkins Park Station because Route 8 will stay on 23rd south of Jackson and will jog back to MLK at Massachusetts once the station opens.
Note that between a 15 minute Route 48 and a 15 minute Route 8, 23rd will have buses every 7.5 minutes on average between Yesler and the Judkins Park Station because Route 8 will stay on 23rd south of Jackson and will jog back to MLK at Massachusetts once the station opens.
What is your point? What has that got to do with anything I wrote in my original comment (or your followup for that matter)?
@ Ross:
My comment about 23rd Ave frequency is a response to your comment that Route 48 should run every 10 minutes. I’m simply noting that it will essentially do better than that between Yesler and Judkins Park Station when Route 8 is moved.
That’s just a fact; it isn’t an opinion. So there’s no need to be hostile.
Most of this makes sense. A few point though.
1) It’s not easy to just add a stop on 15th between John and Thomas, because I think they synchronize those lights so that eastbound and westbound traffic can make it through both. If the bus stops, it misses the second light and also clogs car traffic behind it.
2) Fixing the 8 is easier said than done. I think that Denny east-I5 south traffic needs to be routed off of Denny earlier to unclog Denny and give space for longer bus lanes there.
8) After the first sentence I was quite irritated and preparing to give a rebuttal why you can’t just truncate the 60, but I think extending the 49 to Beacon Hill makes a lot of sense. I’d probably keep the 60 going to Harborview/Swedish since there are probably many staff and patients that rely on the 60 but that would take a bit of $ to do both.
1) Yeah, I would just live with the clogging. I would also live with the fact that the bus likely has trouble even reaching the stop (with so many cars turning right). It is a really bad idea to have bus stops very close to each other even though both buses go to the same place.
2) Yeah, sure. It is difficult to take a lane. But we are doing it other parts of the city as we speak. Westlake and Rainier are prime examples. These are major thoroughfares that got worse for drivers and much better for buses. We can do that at Denny. There is really no good reason not to. In contrast some streets would require a lot more work. Adding BAT lanes for Eastlake was a challenge because of the importance of bus lanes in there. But that isn’t the case here — the street is very similar to Westlake and Rainier.
8) There are other variations that wouldn’t cost any money. For example the 36 could be combined with the 49 (U-District to Othello). Then the 60 could go to downtown instead of just ending at Beacon Hill Station. That actually looks pretty good in terms of length for the 60 but might be pushing it with the 49.
I’ve avoided suggesting any additions here, otherwise I would have proposed “the Boren Bus”. The northern section would look like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/t3UrjRbS8qKxY8qZA. At that point the bus could head towards Beacon Hill. That would then allow for similar swapping to occur.
& Dekta:
1) Yes putting the bus stop in the middle of the 15th Ave jog makes no sense to me. A bus has a hard enough time with the geometry of the jog already, and requiring all the front and rear bus doors (articulated hus) to meet the curb (120 feet max) would make it almost impossible for the driver. That’s on top of how it would add extra travel time for the bus to stop halfway through the light and wait while the bus tail blocks all traffic because it won’t gave enough room to be flush with the curb.
Yes putting the bus stop in the middle of the 15th Ave jog makes no sense to me.
OK, I’ll try and explain it again. Both buses go to the same place. It would be great if they serve the same stop. That way riders could just go to one bus stop and catch the bus there. It is worth noting that each bus runs every twenty minutes. This means that if you guess wrong you could be in for a very long wait. Keep in mind each bus runs every twenty minutes.
Bus stops also aren’t that long. Look at the nearby bus stop on Thomas. Between 16th and the alley way it is about 140 feet. This stop would actually have more space to work with. Serving it would be trivial.
@ Ross:
It certainly is preferable to have buses stop at the same place.
It’s certainly possible to have two buses that don’t have to make immediate turns stop at the same stop. The biggest operational risk is that if one bus is in a shorter stop, the other bus must wait.
I’ve just seen way too many buses drive through this specific intersection. It always looks hard for them, and most of the time the driver takes both lanes to first turn left then turn right without trying to get flush either way the curb to allow for safe loading in between.
Surely if a joint stop in the jog was safely possible, Metro and SDOT would have proposed it and built it years ago. We may not like the route structure — but when it comes to actual stop geometric layouts that must consider bus maneuvering and driver visibility Metro and SDOT do pretty well.
I see the idea, that someone might want to take either a 10 or 11, whatever comes first, but slowing down both buses – plus the 8 – feels like too steep of a price to pay. I’m particularly concerned about a situation where a 10 or 11 bus is bunched with a #8 bus, and the back bus needs several signal cycles to get through that intersection, due to the front bus, plus a couple of cars behind it blocking the bus zone. Even if the right hand lane of 15th were BAT, it wouldn’t help much because cars turning right would still be clogging up the space behind the first bus, preventing the second bus from opening its doors until everything in front of it clears.
At the same time, you’re talking about an intersection 0.4 miles (9 minute walk according to Google) away from the John St. entrance to Capitol Hill Link station. So, most people headed downtown are probably walking to Link rather than riding the bus, and adding that stop on 15th wouldn’t really change that, and those few people that can’t walk the 0.4 miles can still consult OneBusAway to see which stop to wait at; it’s not *that* big of a deal.
It is true, of course, that not everybody is headed all the way downtown, but a trip from, say, 15th/John to Bellevue/Olive is still only 0.8 miles, which is a short enough distance that a lot of the people will just be walking. Again, yes, not everybody can walk 0.8 miles, yes, the bus exists to serve them, but it’s not necessary to slow down every bus for every passenger coming from further east (e.g. far enough away that they actually need the bus) just so someone who doesn’t want to walk half a mile can avoid needing to pull out OBA to see which stop to wait at.
I think the real issue is that the 10 is too short of a route to have enough trip pairs where riding the bus makes since over the walk or Link alternatives for enough people – especially with bus #11 siphoning off a lot of its ridership. Enough that, if the bus network were designed today from scratch, I’m not sure there would even be a #10 (maybe, instead, the hours would be used to run the 11 more often, which covers most of the stops of the 10 anyway). The 10 only really exists because it follows a legacy trolley route that was created back when the city was much smaller and practice was to run routes much closer together. So, I’d probably replace the 10 altogether with more service on the 11 and, maybe tweak route 12 to reduce the Volunteer Park coverage hole(*) before slowing down everything to give the 8, 10 and 11 a common stop at 15th/John.
(*) Maybe the 12 could continue to take Pike/Pine, but head up 15th instead of 19th, and take Galer a few blocks east at the end, keeping the same terminus as the current 12. Or, follow route 10 to Alpha and use Alpha to jog from 15th to 19th, whichever option does better in feedback surveys.
I think the 10/12 would ideally be through-routed to create more viable trip pairs. The most obvious candidates would be the already trolley-wired 36 or 7. But maybe that would be too vulnerable to delays or cause the schedules to be too tightly coupled.
The problem is, I don’t think such a thru route really buys passengers all that much. To go to the Rainier Valley that way, the detour to downtown is a long slog on the bus. Link to Beacon Hill or Mt. Baker station is almost certainly faster. Even a place like Pioneer Square, the thru route still doesn’t seem any faster than just taking Link from Capitol Hill station. A thru route with the 7 or 36 would also likely create reliability issues for riders of the 7 and 36.
To be a useful thru route, you want a bus that goes somewhere that Link doesn’t go, but also doesn’t double back east. Most candidates are already thru routes with something else. A Magnolia bus might be best geographically, but those routes are already paired with something else, plus you can’t pair a diesel route with a trolley route (unless you abandon the wire and run the whole thing with a diesel bus). Route 1 is another possibility, and is, at least, another trolley, but 15th/Pike already has a one seat ride to Belltown on the 2, and 15th/John already has the 8, plus you’ve got Link to Westlake.
Bottom line: I just don’t see a good route to connect the 10 or 12 to that would add enough trip pairs to meaningfully increase ridership.
I don’t know that many people would ride it through the Rainier Valley, but it would at least add a one-seat ride all the way through to CID. Right now you have to get off and transfer at Westlake or walk to get anywhere south of 3rd/Pike, which is pretty painful for such a short bus.
It might be too long/unreliable in the end but when I’m downtown I find myself taking Link and trekking to Pike/Pine instead of taking the bus a lot of the time.
Surely if a joint stop in the jog was safely possible, Metro and SDOT would have proposed it and built it years ago.
Sorry Al, it doesn’t work that way. There are dozens if not hundreds of similar changes that could be done across the city but Metro and SDOT only have so much time. Until recently they didn’t have that much interest. Just to be clear, this would not be a trivial change. It is more than just moving a bus stop it is adding BAT lanes. You would have to make sure that traffic still flows at a reasonable clip. There is already a right turn arrow (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5xzH1gAKHqP2a2yW8) but timing things properly is not always easy.
But it would be worth it. There are a lot of people in that area that have to endure 20 minute buses or cross their fingers and hope that they picked the right bus stop.
Meanwhile, the buses should be timed to avoid conflicts and provide better combined headways. That could happen now and it would improve things. It would still mean a rider has to check the schedule and very quickly pick a bus stop but at least they wouldn’t have a really long wait. Yet Metro hasn’t done that (so much for your “if it was possible they would do it” theory). Keep in mind there are only two buses that would use that stop (the 10 and 11) and both run every twenty minutes. Just time them to run opposite each other and people could catch a bus there every ten minutes.
(The 8 would not use the stop but continue to use the other ones. I would get rid of the bus stop on 15th a few feet to the north of the new stop.)
@ Ross:
I think it’s pretty universally understood that it’s almost always better to put a bus stop either before or after two traffic signals that are always timed to work with each other. Putting a stop in between would guarantee that every time a bus stopped that they would always have to wait an additional signal. It’s also almost impossible to develop any good transit signal priority to prevent that because the signal would not know how long a bit needs to sit at the stop.
And it’s not like the stop would put the stop near a key entrance like a Link station entrance. There is not even a major front door in front of your proposed relocated stop.
I do not see any inherent benefit of changing the stop locations and I see a host of safety and travel time disbenefits for not only traffic, but for buses, pedestrians and bicyclists too..
At the same time, you’re talking about an intersection 0.4 miles (9 minute walk according to Google) away from the John St. entrance to Capitol Hill Link station.
This right here is not an obscure trip: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tfQwsMLzfh17JynK6. That is a trip from a major hospital (that is surrounded on all sides by large residential buildings and plenty of retail) to the Convention Center (where we used to have a major transit station before all those big buildings were added https://maps.app.goo.gl/LemN19rHB5w2V1t78). Yet riders are supposed to exit, quickly check their phone then decide within seconds which way to walk, otherwise they could have a fifteen minute wait. At which point they consider walking to Link only to realize that would mean ten minutes of walking on each end. They consider just walking the whole way but that takes about a half hour and … hell, I guess the best thing to do is call a fu**it cab. This for a bus trip that takes less than ten minutes in the heart of the city.
Yes, the problem can be fixed by a restructure (without any additional service). Just have the 10 and 12 branch at Thomas. Then the 10/12 just stays in the right lane through the intersection (being the transit in “except transit”) while a bus stop would be added just south of there between John Street and John Court (next to the little park). There are already benches: https://maps.app.goo.gl/L2jY4M2WqMmuRprn8. Then again that might be too short. I have no idea how wide the bus stop needs to be (i. e. the distance between the front and back doors) nor do I know how far apart the telephone poles are. At worst you move the stop down the street a little bit. But I could also see them closing off that part of John Court (making it a dead end). Then you just extend the curb all the way across, move the curb cuts and you have plenty of room for the bus to stop. This means that the 11 continues to be on a different street but I don’t think the 11 should be going downtown anyway.
Of course if you branched the 10 and 12 even further north (at Aloha) then you have good combined frequency along more of 15th (without moving any bus stops). The tricky part about that is running a bus where it hasn’t been run before (and moving the wire).
I do not see any inherent benefit of changing the stop locations
I understand the issues and I understand why (for those reasons) it might not work. I’ve repeatedly mentioned that traffic is a potential issue. That is why the traffic engineers get paid the big bucks.
But Good God, man, you still don’t understand the inherent benefit of changing the stop locations! Holy cow, just consider it. You leave work at the hospital. You don’t always leave at the same time — there is inevitable chitchat. No problem. You work in the heart of the city. You live downtown. This should be easy right? Wrong. You have to immediately check your phone. Not for the time mind you, but to figure out where the buses are right now. It looks like the 10 is the best bet. So you cross the street. After a couple minutes you check the phone again and it says the bus has already passed. WTF? So you just walk to the other bus stop and wait. And wait. Eventually (after fifteen minutes) you finally catch the bus.
That, my friend, is bullshit. But hey, welcome to the neighborhood. So many buses going this way and that and yet someone trying to get downtown has to make last second decisions and depend on a notoriously unreliable app just to decide where to catch the freakin’ bus. Every single time!
Of course there are alternatives. You can stand on the corner and look north up 15th and east on Thomas to see which bus is coming. Then, with any luck, you’ll be able to cross the street and get to the bus stop before the bus gets there. Otherwise you get to enjoy standing next to the bus begging the driver to open the doors even though they have pulled away from the bus stop.
We’ve all experienced this sort of thing. Some times it is inevitable. But in this case it can be avoided. Instead of this level of street after work you just walk to the same bus stop. You just take whatever bus gets there first. That is the inherit benefit.
I think the real issue is that the 10 is too short of a route to have enough trip pairs where riding the bus makes since over the walk or Link alternatives for enough people – especially with bus #11 siphoning off a lot of its ridership.
Nonsense. We are talking about the heart of the city and Link is not always the best option. The 11 runs every twenty minutes — how much ridership could it actually be siphoning? At best it is just another of the many buses in the area that could maybe work depending on what time it is, where you are headed, what buses are late and whether Venus is in retrograde or not. It is a mess.
That is the problem. Consider this scenario. Imagine a long, skinny island only three blocks wide. They have three buses running the length of the island — each on a different street. Each bus runs every half hour. You have a bus on your street but it could be a really long wait. You can walk to the other bus stop but you might be worse off. Obviously the solution is to consolidate the routes. Run one bus down the middle every ten minutes.
Obviously things are a lot more complicated here but it is a variation on the same problem. There are way too many infrequent buses going this way and that. Infrequent buses should run in coverage areas, not in very urban areas like this. The G has definitely siphoned off ridership because it is straightforward and frequent. It is also fast but that really isn’t the key (although being fast allows it to be more frequent).
Combining routes is one thing. It is a common approach that can work quite well. But these routes are combined in a haphazard way and it leaves riders trying to manage a system that is far too complex. Having options is nice but what you really want is a straightforward and frequent way to get from point A to point B.
There are some fairly simple solutions. Consider my item 3 up above: just branch the 10/12 at Thomas. That is a simple, low stress option that would greatly improve things. The 10/12 is really not that bad it just branches way too early. By branching at Madison it provides minimal coverage while leaving a major urban area with really crappy service. At a minimum it should branch at Thomas. But I would go farther. A bus stop like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/EfieTAQYH2s9ECor7 should not have to deal with twenty minute service. Holy cow, just look at it. This is the kind of density that various Link stations wish they had. Riders there shouldn’t have to decide whether it is worth waiting for the 10, walking to catch the 11, catching the 8 to Link or maybe just walking to Link. They should just wait there knowing that a bus should be around every ten minutes. In contrast as you get farther north things really do get less dense. These areas are coverage in nature or at least borderline. But since the bus was frequent to this point you might as well keep going — it isn’t far which means going that way is cheap. Branching at Aloha is an option but I would just dogleg over to 19th. So basically this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WEmBKsgtCbgvYBf97. This maximizes coverage (without branching) — you are never that far of a walk from a bus stop. Worse case scenario someone is on 15th and has to walk farther. But the walk — at worst — is five minutes and some of the nicest walking you’ll find anywhere in any city. This ain’t exactly a hell-hole: https://maps.app.goo.gl/to2qhTdK8xiwDQ3fA. The extra walking comes with a bonus — a bus that runs every ten minutes. Yet this would cost nothing in terms of service! A little extra walking here and there and folks over a wide urban area have a much more frequent bus.
Other changes require a transfer. But my guess is a lot of riders are ready for that. Tell someone in Madison Park that their bus won’t go downtown and they will be upset. Tell them that instead their bus will go along Denny to the Seattle Center and run every ten minutes and it is quite likely they will thank you. That is just better. They can transfer to the G or Link to get downtown. The bus will actually run right by South Lake Union!
Of course some of the choices are complicated and require plenty of nuance. But the goal should be simple: improve frequency.
@Ross
the signal there right now assumes that the vehicles will pass through. for instance going west the first green light will then have the second green light given. Even adding a bus lane would not help, the bus would end up stuck at the traffic light every time and have to wait 2 cycles.
if you wanted to move the bus stops to the middle of thomas/john on 15th ave it’d probably require some large car restrictions to keep it even semi usable. like forbidding left turns from 15th ave to john ave and 15th ave to thomas. even then with the restrictions, if one bus is there then the second one 8/11 would be blocked.
I really don’t see how this could be done in any reasonable fashion that won’t have buses constantly bunching up there
the signal there right now assumes that the vehicles will pass through
I get that. I also get why it is common for bus stops to be after the intersection (so that it doesn’t have to be backed up by cars waiting to turn). But that isn’t the case everywhere. There are plenty of instances where the bus has to wait before the turn.
I could see how this could cause a problem but I think it would be minor and rare. Look at the light for a second. I know we have all been there and I’m pretty sure I’ve walked across those crosswalks but I have never focused on the traffic light. But from what I can tell there are only two phases:
Phase 1 — Vehicles going south on 15th can turn right. They can not go straight. Vehicles going north on 15th also have to stop. Vehicles heading east on John can turn north or south on 15th.
Phase 2: Vehicles can go north or south on 15th. Vehicles on John heading east have to stop.
This is probably why the intersection does not back up that much. It is a simple two-phase light.
Now assume for a second that the traffic light to the north (at Thomas) is synchronized with the red turn arrow. A southbound Metro 10 passes through Thomas and all the cars in front of it head towards downtown. It stops to let off riders. As a result traffic behind it has to wait. But no buses have to wait (obviously) since it is the only bus traveling south on 15th. After letting off riders it can creep up to the intersection. Maybe it makes the light, maybe it doesn’t. It is basically random. If the phase matches the amount of time it takes to serve the bus stop it goes through the light perfectly. In other words the right arrow is green when it drops people off but just as it approaches the intersection the arrow turns red. Great! That means the other light (for going straight) is now green. It is basically random just light every other traffic-light/bus-stop combination.
The only question is whether it screwed up another bus. This could definitely happen. But it would be rare. Consider the combinations: Since the 8 doesn’t stop there it can’t delay another bus. Since the 10 and 11 run opposite each other (every ten minutes) they can’t delay each other. So the 10 or 11 could delay an 8. If the 11 is in front of an 8 it has been a problem for a while and that particular intersection is no worse than the others. The only new issues is if a 10 delayed an 8. Annoying yes, but rare.
The traffic engineers would definitely have to take a look at things but with the simple two-phase of the key intersection I don’t think it would be a big deal.
Oh and as far as extending the buses go, I think the reason that so many turn around downtown is because they are under wire. The pairing of the 47 with the 3 is not really a natural pairing but it is quite clever what the planners did. Instead of having a 4 layover downtown (after serving the Central Area) it can just keep going a little ways. Since they are both trolleys you might as well. It is likely you have some through-routing (e. g. Summit to Third & James).
But I don’t really see anything like that for the 10 or 12. Most of the buses are already paired (i. e. they already through-route). You could add additional service onto them but that costs money. For example you could get rid of the 2/13 branch. Just run every 2 from Madrona to Fulton. Pair the 13 with the 10/12 instead. That is a lot of extra service to the top of Queen Anne (that would be great given the growth there) but it would cost extra. Even just going south would cost extra and you would just be reproducing the main spine within our system.
The 11 could go somewhere else. Both John and I suggested pairing it with the Denny/Uptown part of the 8. He suggested a branch — I just send all the buses to Madison Park.
> But from what I can tell there are only two phases
It only has two phases because it has unprotected left turns from north bound 15th avenue onto e john st and south bound 15th avenue onto e thomas street. It can get blocked up quite easily even with the current situation.
It also only works because of the right turn green arrow.
> The only question is whether it screwed up another bus. This could definitely happen. But it would be rare. Consider the combinations: Since the 8 doesn’t stop there it can’t delay another bus.
The westbound route 8 needs to enter the right lane to turn right onto 15th ave. But even more likely is cars attempting to turn right would be blocked by the southbound bus there and then blocking the buses. The right turn green arrow system doesn’t quite work anymore when you have the buses blocking the right lane.
Sure cars/buses can maybe use the center lane to go around but if a couple want to go straight instead then it is blocking completely. also it is already a tight space. the route 8 bus doesn’t have the funnest time at that intersection already. having another bus there would mean it would need to turn more than 90 degrees to swerve around it, probably enter the opposing traffic and then turn sharply around it.
“It only has two phases because it has unprotected left turns”
Yeah, I noticed that. It isn’t a great intersection for pedestrians (or traffic). But I don’t think it is really an issue here. My point is that with only two phases the likelihood that a bus will be stuck there for very long is pretty low. It would be different if it was a typical four-phase light.
But even more likely is cars attempting to turn right would be blocked by the southbound bus there and then blocking the buses.
But again, that would be rare. The 10 and 11 could not block each other. The 8 would not block any other bus. So it would be the 10 or 11 blocking an 8. If the 11 blocks the 8 (with or without cars in between) it has likely been happening for several blocks. Even though they are “bunched” they can’t leapfrog (they are going to different places). Thus the 8 can just lag back — it will likely catch up later.
So you really have only one new potential problem that is introduced. A 10 is at the bus stop just as an 8 is rounding the corner. That would happen once a day? Once a week?
It also doesn’t seem terrible. I would be more concerned about the 8 and 11 delaying each other. That is way more likely to occur for a couple reasons. First, it could happen with either bus being in front. (In contrast if the 8 is in front of the 11 at that particular bus stop it doesn’t matter — the 8 doesn’t stop there.) Second it is just a lot more likely to happen. You are concerned about bad luck. A bus gets delayed a few minutes the one time during the hour when that can’t happen. The same is true with the 8 and 11 bus bunching but it also classic bunching. Bunching occurs (in part) because the lead bus is much slower. An 8 happens to be a couple minutes ahead of an 11 as they head west on Madison. But the 8 is picking up people at every stop while the 11 skips a few. Even though they are going to different places it wouldn’t surprise me if at plenty of stops everyone is just headed to Link. Next thing you know the 11 is stuck behind the 8.
It just seems very unlikely that a bus would delay another bus if they added the stop there. It would definitely delay cars — but rarely would a bus be delayed. Even when it did it doesn’t seem like the end of the world. At worst the bus has to wait an extra cycle. That is nothing compared to what the 8 has to deal with on Denny every day.
I’d like to see Denny served by a combined corridor. I think it’s hard to justify higher than 15m frequencies on the MLK segment of the 8, but the LQA-Madison Valley segment should obviously be at 10 minutes or better. That could be fixed by sending the 11 to LQA and running both routes at 20m. That would be fine even in the medium term, but eventually as funds free up that could get upgraded to 15m frequency, meaning 7.5m service on the LQA-Madison Valley segment.
I could see the same happen down Broadway. The 60 could get straightened out and the 49 could get sent to (for example) Rainier/Weller. Again that would start at 20m frequency and eventually get upgraded to 15m
In general I think Metro runs into a lot of political difficulties deleting or moving routes. Route 20 is an obvious recent example; despite it making perfect sense to delete the lower-productivity segment of the route, it spurred a lot of backlash. That probably should have been tied to rerouting the 62 (as mentioned previously), but obviously that did not happen.
I suspect it will be very politically difficult to straighten the 60 without a bus down Boren. I’m not really sure where Metro finds the hours for that.
I think it would make a lot of sense to delete the tail of the 4, but again I suspect that would be really politically difficult without some kind of compensation. The obvious candidate there would be increasing the frequency of the 48.
I like that idea of the 11 and 8 being split tails from Denny. Most of the 8’s ridership gets off before turning south if I remember, so they all get increased frequency. Current riders of the 11 would still have the option to transfer at either G line or Capitol Hill Link station.
I think it’s hard to justify higher than 15m frequencies on the MLK segment of the 8, but the LQA-Madison Valley segment should obviously be at 10 minutes or better.
Yeah, and that is an issue that can be solved any number of ways. One of the easiest (and one I have on the map) is to just live without service on MLK. The 8 could then be sent to Madison Park, replacing the 11. This is overkill for that part of Madison but it is relatively cheap to serve. It would not surprise if the ridership per hour is pretty good just because it is fairly fast, short and Madison Park itself is relatively dense.
If we insisted on serving that part of MLK (which is reasonable) then one option would be to branch from the 27. So fifteen minute service on Yesler between downtown and MLK and half hour service on both ends. That would cost a lot less. It would cover the biggest hole that would otherwise exist while providing a natural one-seat connection (connecting parts of the Central Area). Like Denny I could see service being very frequent on Yesler. So for now it would be 30 minute headways on the trunk with 15 on each branch, but it could evolve to 20/10.
But all of this would be very controversial and disruptive which is why I would do it later.
I personally like the idea of continuing to have the 60 serve First Hill, but route it down Boren to SLU afterwards, rather than Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill already has the streetcar to First Hill, so the tail of the 60 is redundant.
The tradeoff is that the Cap Hill to First Hill option doesn’t stop right in front of the hospitals like the 60 does, but it’s not that far to walk. In return, you get a straight shot connecting First Hill to SLU that I think would be popular. Traffic on Boren would make this bus slow and not the most reliable, but I think it’s still worth it.
I personally like the idea of continuing to have the 60 serve First Hill, but route it down Boren to SLU afterwards, rather than Capitol Hill. Capitol Hill already has the streetcar to First Hill, so the tail of the 60 is redundant.
It is not redundant if it increases frequency where you want it. That is the idea behind a spine as well. This is a critical part of Broadway. It is how riders are expected to get from the north end (via Link) to First Hill. It is also very strong in its own right (there is a huge amount density along the corridor). Ideally it would have six minute headways.
That is difficult if not impossible to provide with the streetcar. You would need more streetcars for one thing. The streetcar also has flawed routing at the south. Thus you would be increasing frequency along a section that is very poor while also increasing frequency where it is needed.
By combining the 60 and streetcar you solve the problem. The overlap is where you want it. You can provide very good headways along Broadway while providing decent headways elsewhere. It is the same idea as John’s suggestion (in that case the core section is Uptown to 23rd while in my case it is Broadway from Yesler to Link). While a Boren bus would definitely be valuable the biggest weakness in our system (by far) is low frequency. Overlapping the streetcar and the 60 along Broadway would at least solve that problem along that section while saving money. This money can then be put into running other buses more often.
But you save even more money by combining the 49 and 60 (as I suggested). This allows you to bump up frequency at the north end of Capitol Hill (north of where the 60 ends). At that point I see a couple choices:
1) Have the new 49 just run from the U-District to Beacon Hill Station while the 60 just runs from Beacon Hill Station to Westwood Village. This is what I suggested initially.
2) Extend the 49 even further to take over the 36. So now the 49 runs from the U-District to Othello (via Beacon Hill Station). The 60 is then sent downtown. This is a more manageable distance for the 60 but longer for the 49.
As far as the Boren route goes I think it should be extended through South Lake Union like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yYd1yrTCz2s8KmX96. Connecting that to the southern end of the 60 would be pushing it. As it is the 60 is very long. Assuming the Boren bus is sent to Beacon Hill (instead of Rainier Valley) I would do the following:
1) Run the 49 from the U-District to Beacon Hill Station.
2) Send the 60 downtown.
3) Combine the 36 with the Boren bus.
That is a pretty good match in terms of length. The 60 is shorter, while the 36 and 49 are a good length. That is probably a bit too much service on the north end of Beacon Hill but it is not a terrible value (in my opinion).
Personally I would send the Boren bus to Mount Baker Station. That is a little longer but it would mean that both Rainier Valley and Beacon Hill would have buses to First Hill. Like north Beacon Hill it is probably overkill for Rainier Avenue but if push comes to shove I would truncate the 106.
I asked the comment section to write post specifically about the Marymoor Village Station west gate issue. Is anyone working this? And none of this … “I looked at an online map and this what I found” crap. I want someone to email ST and find out their plans for the gate, go out to the station, walk and time some popular station-to-park walks with and without the gate closed, take some pictures, etc.
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Milwaukee-24-in-Bolt-Cutter-With-7-16-in-Max-Cut-Capacity-48-22-4024/303182052
tactical urbanism is the best kind of urbanism
This gives me another post idea for someone else to write. Top 10 tactical urbanism ideas for Seattle. Some of the ideas should be transit-related.
I’m not sure the Blog can openly endorse less-than-legal urbanism tactics.
@Delta,
What you are suggesting is an act of vandalism, which is a criminal act. That is not the right approach.
Additionally, even if somebody did commit an act of vandalism and open up a west entrance, everyone entering via that new entrance would be committing fare evasion and subject to ST fare enforcement policy.
Lazarus,
I interpreted Sam’s comment as facetious, and a parody of the laborious bureaucracy of the Seattle Process. My comment in turn was facetious in showing the polar opposite – nonconsentual direct action. I apologize if I misunderstood or was misunderstood
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/05/23/harrell-chops-off-dozens-of-city-blocks-from-planned-growth-centers/
Sorry, meant as a different thread.
That reminds me, I was looking at an online map, and found that with the west platform gate closed, the walk from the station platform to the park’s music venue is 21 minutes. However, if the west gate were open, the walk would only be 20 minutes.
Isn’t a 1 minute reduction pretty good? To put that in perspective it takes about a minute to walk a Seattle city block. I’d be happy to walk a block less to reach wherever I’m headed.
Not sure what map you’re looking at, but it’s about an 800 ft difference from the last car (walking the whole 400 ft platform and back), which is about 3 min.
It’s pretty universally accepted that it takes a minute to walk just over 300 feet. I would measure the distance and multiply accordingly.
It looks like it’s about 800 feet minimum out of direction.
Also, a rider can’t cross the outbound platform in front of that train until that train passes. So that adds additional time for anyone from Bellevue getting off the train.
@John D,
I suspect that if you arrive at the station prepared to walk an additional mile (5280 ft) to the music venue, then the additional 200 ft to walk around the east entrance isn’t going to bother you that much.
But if I was ST I’d just make this problem go away. For the foreseeable future ST only needs to run 2-car trains on ELSL. So just have these 2-car trains stop at the east end of the platform regardless of their travel direction. That way the traveling public always arrives and departs from near the east entrance and the walk penalty is minimized.
And the east entrance is the most important entrance anyhow. That is where the buses are, the parking is, and the majority of TOD. Aka, the east entrance is where the ridership is.
And the east entrance is closest to PostDoc brewing anyhow.
@Lazarus
I don’t think it’s a big deal, since most of the station area is to the east anyway, but I don’t think it makes sense to say it’s “only” a minute.
If the east exit was closed and the west exit was the only one open it would be kind of annoying to walk around the station just to reach Chipotle, for example
Heading to the train, a one-minute difference in walk time equates a 10% chance of having to wait an additional 10 minutes. That’s not nothing.
@Sam,
“ I looked at an online map and this what I found” crap….
Ya! Because there are “Maps”, and then there are “Alternative Maps”! LOL.
If this was a real issue I’d call someone at ST and ask a few questions, but this is not a real issue. And I’m not going to waste ST’s time when they obviously have better things to be working on. I’d rather they focus on getting Full ELE open first.
The map (as in the real “Map” from ST) clearly shows that the entire west end of the station is slated to become a TOD site. I have no problem with ST deciding to delay a west entrance until such time as that project is substantially complete.
And a west entrance isn’t really needed right now anyhow.
“I have no problem with ST deciding to delay a west entrance until such time as that project is substantially complete.”
You keep claiming ST intends or is considering a west entrance in conjunction with the TOD project, but there’s no evidence for it.
@Mike Orr,
Again. I have no problem with ST delaying any potential west entrance until such time as the TOD project is substantially complete. That is just smart planning as the TOD project, the track service vehicle entrance, and the potential west entrance would all need to be tightly integrated.
And you seem to think adding an entrance is as simple as just unbolting the gate — it isn’t. It requires ORCA readers and ticket vending machines and the power to run them. And all that needs to go under a protective canopy to protect them from the elements, and that canopy needs to be lit, and will undoubtably also include additional screenwalls and intrusion barriers.
And again, almost all the ridership demand is on the east end of the station. It’s not clear if there would ever be enough demand at the west end to justify the cost of an additional entrance. But ST can certainly afford to wait 5 or 10 years to find out.
“I have no problem with ST delaying any potential west entrance until such time as the TOD project is substantially complete. That is just smart planning …”
The issue is you insiunuating ST is planning a future west entrance when we have no evidence of that. The quote above is fine: “any potential west entrance” means there may or may not be one. But in other places you hint that there will be, and in one place you argued that a semicircle excluded in the TOD area means there will be a full-access entrance there. No it doesn’t. We need to avoid spreading false rumors about what ST (or any agency) will do or why it’s doing it, and focus on the information that’s in the public domain. From that we can speculate what the agency might do or what we think it should do, without falsely claiming we know it will do it. We can only know what ST will do and why if it’s in a report, a board/staff member says so publicly, or they or somebody close to them tells you individually. Otherwise it’s simply speculation.
“almost all the ridership demand is on the east end of the station.”
Where are you getting that from?
Sam, add to your list of things to ask ST, what its estimates are of the relative percent of riders going from Link toward the park, toward the eastern village, and toward the P&R. That would answer the question of whether riders going out the west end are 1% or less or not.
@Mike Orr,
The semi circular cutout from the TOD site is mainly for the west end vehicle access road. But it is also an opportunity for any future west entrance.
And I am not saying that ST is fully committed to building a west entrance anytime soon. The ridership demand just doesn’t exist at the west end to justify such a thing. But it is clear that they could. And they haven’t done anything that would preclude the addition of a west entrance in the future.
This is what future proofing looks like.
“And you seem to think adding an entrance is as simple as just unbolting the gate — it isn’t. It requires ORCA readers and ticket vending machines and the power to run them”
All the more reason to start operations with the station complete.
“I am not saying that ST is fully committed to building a west entrance anytime soon.”
And I’m saying there’s no evidence that ST has any intention to build a west entrance, or that it sees it as a possibly worthwhile thing to do. This makes a difference on our advocacy. If ST doesn’t think it’s worthwhile, then we need to try to convince ST that it’s worthwhile if we believe it is. If ST thinks it may be worthwhile or is planning to, then it’s a lesser job to nudge ST to prioritize it more and be transparent about its intention.
If ST thinks a west entrance isn’t worthwhile, then it’s the same issue as rerouting DSTT2’s Midtown station to First Hill or the Metro 8 subway concept. We keep asking ST to study them, but ST ignores that we said anything and won’t even consider that they might be worthwhile or worth a study. This west-entrance issue is new — people realized there wasn’t an entrance but could be an entrance just 14 days ago — and that’s not necessarily enough time to get it to ST’s attention and get a productive response. But most likely ST is not considering an entrance, so the issue is to convince it to.
“The ridership demand just doesn’t exist at the west end to justify such a thing.”
Again you claim this. What is the threshold you’re thinking of that would justify an entrance? How do you know it’s not already met? What are you basing your threshold on?
@Mike Orr,
“And I’m saying there’s no evidence that ST has any intention to build a west entrance”,
Exactly. Future proofing does not commit ST to build anything, it just protects against the future possibility. And that is pretty much what ST has done.
“or that it sees it as a possibly worthwhile thing to do.”
Correct again. Currently there is no evidence that a west entrance is justified. None. Almost all ridership will access the station from the east entrance. If that changes in the future, then ST can add the entrance.
And who knows, maybe the TOD developer will view a west entrance as an amenity and be willing to help fund it. And that would be a good thing, right? Private dollars supporting public transit. That would be great.
““And I’m saying there’s no evidence that ST has any intention to build a west entrance”,
“Exactly. Future proofing does not commit ST to build anything,”
Sigh, that’s not what you said before. You said ST intends to create a west entrance when the adjacent TOD project is finished.
“Currently there is no evidence that a west entrance is justified. None. Almost all ridership will access the station from the east entrance.”
Again, what are you basing that on? How many users per day does an entrance need to be justified? What, if anything, has ST said regarding its threshold? Where do you get the idea that “almost all” riders will go out the east side? Have you been standing there counting people?
“And who knows, maybe the TOD developer will view a west entrance as an amenity and be willing to help fund it. And that would be a good thing, right? Private dollars supporting public transit. That would be great.”
No, the minimum basics should be included in the base project. The frequency floor be 10 minutes, platforms should be center rather than side, and stations should have entrances at both ends if there’s anything more than a couple houses at that end, especially if there’s a regional multipurpose park there.
The station is even freaking named after the park. The park came first by several decades. The station came second. The village came third. The village exists because of the station and the park.
> I asked the comment section to write post specifically about the Marymoor Village Station west gate issue. Is anyone working this?
I don’t think it was ever that important. most of the apartments and retail are all on the west side. yes the park is to the west but if you’re heading to the activity field it’s still south.
Originally they wanted to have a entrance/exit on the west side. When they changed from elevated to at-grade. (the money for elevating marymoor village was used to elevate the downtown redmond station instead ) Though these are the concept designs, back then they were even considering placing the garage on the west side.
https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2017/170622%20Downtown%20Redmond%20Link%20Extension%20Preferred%20Alternative%20Update.pdf
https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/project-documents/downtown-redmond-link-conceptual-engineering-open-house-092017.pdf
those conceptual plans above are from 2017
in the 2019 plans https://www.redmond.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11774/12-19-19-Design-Review-Board-Agenda-Item-Sound-Transit-DRLE-Presentation-PDF they just placed entrance and garage on the east side and left the west side as an emergency entrance/exit
The more I think about this the more I have come to believe that ST was correct not build a west entrance.
As has been stated, almost all the ridership demand is going to come from the east end. Probably ~99% actually. The buses are there, the parking garage is there, the TOD is there, PostDoc is even sort of there.
Additionally, it hasn’t been mentioned, but the west end is where the service access is to the tracks is. So ST would need to design around vehicle access AND some sort of future TOD design that is unknown at this time.
It’s simply much, much smarter to wait until all that is done and then add a west entrance only if future demand is there. Because demand is not there today.
Whether that is 2 years, 5 years, or 25 years is immaterial. Best to wait.
And the smart way to get to the concert is on a shuttle bus from MVS anyhow. Nobody is going to walk a mile with all their beach chairs, blankets, and concert “paraphernalia”. Especially after the concert when it is getting dark.
So kudos to ST for not building a west entrance. Good call on their part. At least for now,
I have to disagree with the line of thinking that says a west entrance has to have high demand in order to exist. It’s not like we’re talking about a huge cost here. The station is there anyway, the train is there anyway. An Orca reader isn’t that much money. Just the cost of paving the trail connecting the station to Marymoor Park probably far exceeds the cost of opening up a west entrance, and they wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of paving the trail if they didn’t expect people to use it.
Another way to think of it, not having a west entrance is like a city building an intersection, but putting a crosswalk on only one side of the street and saying that there’s not enough pedestrians to justify having a crosswalk on the other side. Sure, people can go around, crossing the street three times instead of once, but nobody should have to, there is no safety benefit (the person still has to cross the street anyway), and the amount of money saved on pedestrian signal hardware and white paint, negligibile.
“And the smart way to get to the concert is on a shuttle bus from MVS anyhow.”
I don’t know which shuttle you are talking about, but waiting 20 minutes for a shuttle to show up, followed by another 10 minutes on the shuttle, sitting in traffic (from all the concert-goers showing up in cars), doesn’t sound like a smart way to me. The smart way is to just walk. Unless you’ve got some sort of mobility difficult, short-distance shuttles designed to cover distances that you could just walk almost never make sense (and operating them for people that are not disabled, but simply lazy, is a huge waste of resources).
Only 1% of station users are going to the biggest regional park in the Eastside with a lot of unique activities? That doesn’t sound plausible.
The 2 Line will have late evening trains Tuesday until 11:30pm for a concert at the park. That suggests ST expects more than 1% of riders to take Link to the concert, or that it’s trying to generate such ridership.
To back up Mike’s post,,ST today issued this announcement about extended service for Marymoor Park live events this summer:
https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/2-line-service-extended-marymoor-live-summer-concerts
No mention of opening the west emergency gate. No mention of a shuttle either.?
@Al S,
ST shouldn’t open up the west entrance emergency gate. Absolutely not. Riders should continue to use the east entrance as designed.
As to a shuttle, I’m just saying that such a thing is a better option than building a west entrance “now”. And I certainly don’t think ST should pay for it, or even operate it. Any shuttle service should be paid for by the concert venue itself. They can contract it out as they see fit.
“ST shouldn’t open up the west entrance emergency gate. Absolutely not. Riders should continue to use the east entrance as designed.”
Now you’ve gone from “ST may be thinking about building an entrance someday” to “ST should certainly not open the gate”.
Redmond Tech station if I recall has entrances at both ends of the platform where people cross the tracks. I’ll double check the next time I’m there. So do all the Rainier Valley surface stations.
ST could open the gate on they days it has extra evening service as a concession that it made a bad design choice not to make it a full-access entrance from the beginning. If it later has to block the gate temporarily for construction, that’s no different from other cases where it closes entrances or stations or elevators or does single-tracking temporarily. It doesn’t mean it has to be closed continuously from now until the last construction period has finished.
You now what, I was intending to do an outing this weekend, and to visit Marymoor Village station sometime soon and look at it more closely. I’ll combine those and do it today. (On Saturday, because the 550 runs every 15 minutes. It’s not as feasible on Sunday or Memorial Day when both the 550, 545, and 271 run every 30 mninutes.)
To put the cost of having the west entrance be open on perspective, a single stall in a parking garage runs at tens of thousands of dollars, minimum, sometimes over 100 thousand. Even with the overhead of wiring and installation, an Orca reader doesn’t cost that much. I would hope that even Lazarus would agree that the value of a west entrance is more than the value of one single parking space in a garage of 2000 of them.
For regular park destinations … dog park/tennis courts/community garden/soccer fields/baseball fields … almost everyone will continue to drive, they won’t switch to Link. The park is so large, and there are so many parking lots spread throughout the park, that driving will continue to make the most sense for many. Those destinations are also on the other side of the park from the station. Some are in the middle.
During weekday peak periods, the vast majority of riders (commuters) are going to or coming from the east. I watched a couple of trains unload passengers at MV during one peak period. Almost no one exited the east gate, then walk towards the park.
For special events, however … music and movie events … more people will opt for Link. (Think families on July 4th taking the 2 Line to Bellevue Downtown Station, then walking over 1/2 mile to the Downtown Park). But, even if the MV west platform gate were open, the minutes saved are a drop in the bucket compared all the walking they will have to do for the rest of the day. It will easily be 40+ minutes of total walking.
Also keep in mind, even if the west platform gate were open, there is still a north/south fence at the park border that blocks direct access to the park. Once a pedestrian is on the path from the station to the park, if they want to walk directly west to the Veladrome and beyond, they can’t. They have to walk a few minutes south to get around the fence.
“For regular park destinations … dog park/tennis courts/community garden/soccer fields/baseball fields … almost everyone will continue to drive, they won’t switch to Link.”
But for people who don’t have cars, can’t drive, or don’t want to drive, Link makes Marymoor Park much more accessible than it used to be. You used to have to walk half an hour from the bus stop just to get to the park entrance and through the driveway and parking lot to the first destination, and all the other destinations were beyond that. I walked 45 minutes to see a rugby match. Now, bam, the first destination is right there, with a couple minutes’ overhead (no west entrance, the fence Sam mentioned), but we can work on that later. Even if the first destination is not yours, it’s nice to shave 28 minutes from the one-way walk.
In that light, perhaps we’re overreacting to the lack of west entrance. At least Link made the park **MUCH MORE ACCESSIBLE** to non-drivers, and with 10-minute weekend frequency instead of 30 minutes.
The issue with the missing entrance is more one of principle: ST should prioritize passenger’s needs and having an entrance at both ends. We shouldn’t have to check whether ST neglected this in the design, or spend years giving volumous feedback to get it to do so afterward. It should just do the right thing from the beginning. This is just one more way it didn’t.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/05/23/harrell-chops-off-dozens-of-city-blocks-from-planned-growth-centers/
One thing about RapidRide K that always bothered me is that the Bellevue-Kirkland bus used to go to Totem Lake, then switched to Redmond in 2020, right around the time the decision was made that the K line in 2030 will revert this, going to Totem Lake again.
I don’t have too strong of an opinion as to whether the Kirkland-Bellevue bus should serve Redmond or Totem Lake, but whatever it is, it should be consistent, not flipping back and forth every few years, and at the very least any decision to flip it should have justification in terms of ridership or making the network more efficient. The fact that the K line was set in stone to go to Totem Lake right after the 250 just started going to Redmond seems weird. At best, it smells like excessive beurocracy (e.g. the people who do service restructures and the people who do RapidRide planning not talking to each other), at worst, it’s RapidRide routes being set by politics, rather than rider concerns (e.g. Kirkland arguing that Redmond already has RapidRide, hence the K should not go to Redmond). Either way, it’s weird.
It feels like Kirkland getting excessive favors. The Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond routing would connect the three largest downtowns in the central Eastside. The Totem Lake routing would leave Kirkland-Redmond out. I thought this line was for the benefit of all three cities and for the Eastside subarea in general. Instead it’s only Kirkland’s benefit that matters? And Redmond is chopped liver? Why doesn’t Redmond have any rights to a line that was going to serve it?
I understand the goal of giving trunk transit to Totem Lake, and the fact that Kirkland and Totem Lake don’t have any RapidRide yet, and they have respectable population sizes. But if the K is going to be rerouted to Totem Lake, at minimum I want a commitment for a full-time frequent route on 85th, ideally with at least some street improvements to make it faster, or failing that, at least a plan for street improvements and attempts to find funding for it. Half-hourly weekend and evening service between Kirkland and Redmond just does not make sense.
When ST2 dropped First Hill station, it gave First Hill a streetcar in mitigation. When ST3 bypassed First Hill again with DSTT2, it contributed to RapidRide G. Redmond should get something.
The routing down 124th over market was always odd. They cited wanting to connect to the stride 2 freeway station.
Personally I’d implement it with rapidride k heading to Redmond (still crossing 85th aka same as 250) and have a separate rapidride 255 that heads up market street to totem lake.
I guess another view though could see rapidride K as the precursor to the Kirkland issaquah light rail line
I think the homes west of Market are pretty wealthy and neither need nor want bus riders in their neighborhood.
Mike, do you feel bad for Redmond? Poor Redmond, with only one rapidride line and only 3 light rail stations?
I only know 2 Kirklanders, but they seem to be much more integrated with Totem Lake than with Redmond. I’d guess that’s true for most Kirklanders except for Microsoft workers, but I don’t think K line could have gone to Microsoft anyway.
“do you feel bad for Redmond? Poor Redmond, with only one rapidride line and only 3 light rail stations?”
I feel bad for people traveling between Kirkland and Redmond. Redmond has a lot of destinations and jobs, but is so-near-yet-so-far on the current transit network. RapidRide B and the 3 light rail stations are irrelevant for Redmond-Kirkland riders. Redmond-Kirkland is one side of the Eastside urban triangle, and they’re among the largest cities and have the most jobs. Link addresses one side of the triangle; RapidRide K will address the second; but what about the third?
“I don’t think K line could have gone to Microsoft anyway.”
The 245 goes from Kirkland to Microsoft on 70th. It’s 15-minute frequent during office hours, so that works for Microsoft commuters. The 85th route is to connect downtown Kirkland to downtown Redmond, for both 9-5 workers and people making every other kind of trip between those cities around the clock. Such as something we’re discussing in another thread, going to Marymoor Park.
The stretch of market from Juanita to downtown Kirkland still has townhouses and apartments, also near totem lake would connect the section on 124th Ave.
Are the 250 and 245 going to be axed?
@delta
For the rapidride k it would take over the 250 and 271.
The 250 would be left as a stub route only between Redmond and downtown Kirkland. The 271 is already being converted to a shorter route 270 only between uw and Bellevue
The 245 wouldn’t be modified for rapidride k though I think is getting changed for the full east link opening
To the point Delta raised: We don’t know for sure what will happen when the K is added but we can guess. For background this is the plan for after Link gets across the lake. The 250 will change but it looks the same to me. The 270 will replace the 271. It will no longer go to the college. The 220 will take over that section.
Then the K gets added. As WL wrote, the 250 would be left as a stub route running between Redmond and downtown Kirkland. I guess that is OK. It would make sense to run it as often as the K. The routes could be synchronized so that riders would have a frequent connection between the freeway station (served by Stride lines coming from Bellevue or Lynnwood) to to Downtown Kirkland. I assume the 255 would be moved to Lake Washington Boulevard. I assume the 245 remains the same. I think that is about it.
Mike, is it that hard for Redmond riders to take the light rail and transfer to the K? They’re forcing riders around the county to take longer commutes because it better connects with “Stride” and “Link” , so might as well be consistent.
The 235 (230, 231) have always gone to Totem Lake since the 1970s. When RapidRide K was outlined, it was envisioned as a Bellevue-Kirkland-Redmond route, and to make the primary Kirkland-Redmond corridor 85th instead of 70th. Route 250 was created to prefigure this line and prebuild ridership. A year or so later, Kirkland lobbied to reroute the K to Totem Lake, and Metro agreed. The 250 lost its point but is still running years later. If Metro thinks the Totem Lake one-seat ride is so much better, why doesn’t it do it now rather than waiting several more years for the K? If it’s better then it’s better now. If it’s worse then it’s worse now. The current de facto situation suggests Redmond is better now but Totem Lake is better in five years. That makes no sense. Totem Lake’s growth has already occurred: it won’t magically double between June 2029 and June 2030.
To be fair to totem lake they have been building more apartments. On ne 120th st a new apartment complex just finished
Also they are starting construction on more https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2025/05/06/construction-starting-eastside-apartment-project.html
A RapidRide 255 is possible. Metro had to choose between 15th and 24th in Ballard. It was a tradeoff between an established pre-WWII village and the opportunity for growth on an underused industrial stroad. Metro and Seattle chose the brownfield site, even though when it’s fully built up it will probably never be as pedestrian-scaled or have as many or varied destinations or be as well-used as Real Ballard. Later Metro chose to rectify this by making the 40 RapidRide too, so there would be two RapidRide lines. Later still, the RapidRide project failed financially, and Metro/SDOT superceded it with full-time frequency and transit+ upgrades (something less than RapidRide, but still respectable).
In Kirkland there’s a dilemma between Market Street and further east. So there might eventually be a Ballard-like solution with two RapidRides. Especially since the 255 goes to the U-District and Seattle in general, a major regional destination/transfer point that’s not on RapidRide K, and one of the two biggest if not THE biggest transit ridership corridor in the northwest Eastside.
I think part of the problem is that the City of Kirkland decided to focus growth in Totem Lake instead of Downtown Kirkland. It would be like Ballard deciding to build in Sunset Hill instead of next to Old Ballard. Downtown Kirkland has charm and history. It is fundamentally more attractive than Totem Lake. But because they limited growth in the heart of Kirkland and encouraged Totem Lake to become big it means Totem Lake needs to have a lot of service as well. Now you have yet another hub in a region (the East Side) that has too many small hubs already (if you want decent transit). You are bound to be spread thin.
Going back and forth with the K Line designs is just another flaw in the RapidRide plans. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind when it comes to bus routing. It is one of the fundamental advantages of buses. Not too long ago it would have been silly to give Totem Lake so much service. But with the new development there it makes sense. The problem is the “permanent” nature of RapidRide. Routing becomes this major ordeal, even though it shouldn’t be. Just make the routes as best you can and if things change, roll with it. The stop diet and BAT lanes can be used by the new buses if you do a restructure. Quite often you don’t even need a restructure — just change how much service a bus gets. But with RapidRide there is this assumption that we’ve figured out an ideal routing for a high-frequency bus and quite often that just isn’t the case. Without a doubt there are RapidRide lines that are both intuitive and appropriate for a big investment. The A and E come to mind. But routes like the F seem the opposite.
Looking at the K reminds me of the F. There are so many questions about the routing, which is not a good thing for RapidRide. For example:
1) Is it doing a loop at the South Kirkland Park and Ride? That seems like a big waste of time for a RapidRide bus.
2) Why is the bus going on 108th and not Lake Washington Boulevard? That way the bus could avoid having to do the loop to get to 85th.
3) Why isn’t the bus serving Juanita?
4) Why isn’t the bus serving Redmond? (This was Mike’s point.)
I’m not saying these decisions are bad (well, some of them are) but they are not obvious. Quite often the answer is “some other bus is going that way”. Fine, but then why not make that bus RapidRide? Prior to the pandemic the 255 had by far the highest ridership of any East Side bus. The 271 was second. Third was the 245, with half the ridership of the 255. Now all three are about the same and none of them have that much ridership. It isn’t obvious to me that RapidRide makes sense in that area, let alone that this is the best routing.
Obviously I’m biased. I’m not thrilled with the RapidRide program. But I also feel like folks are taking the wrong approach. It should be “what buses are so busy they should be converted to RapidRide?”. Of course that could come with a modification. But instead it seems like they say “Hey, this area needs a RapidRide. Any ideas?”. As a result we end up with something that just isn’t right.
“But I also feel like folks are taking the wrong approach. It should be “what buses are so busy they should be converted to RapidRide?”. Of course that could come with a modification. But instead it seems like they say “Hey, this area needs a RapidRide. Any ideas?”. As a result we end up with something that just isn’t right.”
That is unfortunately how all our region’s transit investments are decided these days. At least the RapidRide sunk cost is much less than ST3 — which was pretty much planned the same way.
I agree Al.
I think the routing is fairly okay, except for the loop at the P+R and the roundabout route at Bellevue College (it should obviously head down Snoqualmie River Rd). I expect the K line to do well by suburban standards, somewhere between the B and the F.
I expect 124th to do decently well. 124th in Totem Lake is fairly dense with a lot of fresh construction, and Market St has major traffic issues (it’s the main route from Bellevue to all of Juanita/Finn Hill). The short 85th St segment near the high school is typically pretty busy as well. And obviously the 250/K overlap will serve Kirkland-Stride trips.
108th is more productive than Lake Wa mostly thanks to Google. The university has some ridership as well but it doesn’t seem particularly busy to me.
It’s not that clear to me that it should have gone to Totem Lake instead of Redmond, but I think the route looks about as good as it can get for a Kirkland-Bellevue line.
If we only converted the busiest buses to RapidRide, we’d end up with 80% of RapidRide lines in Seattle proper. That would probably be best from a raw ridership perspective, but I think there’s value in spreading some of the benefits around; it builds support for transit in the entire region instead of just within Seattle.
“I think part of the problem is that the City of Kirkland decided to focus growth in Totem Lake instead of Downtown Kirkland.”
It wanted to keep downtown Kirkland as-is so it channeled growth to Totem Lake, and got the K rerouted there and pushed for Stride 2 with a Totem Lake station but no second line for downtown Kirkland (as multi-line BRT would have done).
Later, growth became so big, and the Googleplex southeast of downtown grew so much, that the city relented and allowed more density downtown. Now it’s significantly larger than it was, but it was too late for the RapidRide K or Stride 2 decisions, and some of the businesses/hosing that could have been in downtown Kirkland were built in Totem Lake in the meantime.
It is hard to define “Downtown Kirkland” because things change over time. Maybe a better term is “Central Kirkland”. Here is a short walk from the Kirkland Building (built in 1891) to Kirkland City Hall. I would call this Central Kirkland. There is development around there along with the preservation of old buildings like the first one. Great.
But now look at the zoning map. There is a small strip along Market for development and that is about it. To the east and the west it is zoned single family all the way from I-405 to Lake Washington. The only exception is that strip and development to the south that occasionally stretches north. Even the strip where they allow development (MSC for Market Street Corridor) is very narrow. This is the area that is very attractive for growth. You have historical buildings and a street grid that existed before the automobile. It has all the makings of a high-density inner suburb. But they won’t allow it.
It is tempting to think that the area to the east is difficult to serve with buses even if they developed it. But that’s not the case. Even with the low density nature of the area it has bus service on 3rd Street up to 18th. Yet on both sides of the street there is nothing but single family homes. If nothing else you would think they would allow development between Market and 3rd Street but there is nothing a half block east of Market. A bus could also go up Sixth Street, which is a continuation of 108th (the street the RapidRide K will run on). This route is entirely on arterials and it runs by an elementary and middle school. It would be yet another connection between Juanita and Central Kirkland. But there is really nothing in between there (except the schools) so Metro doesn’t bother. Instead they have focused growth on Totem Lake making transit (and just life) more difficult.
Downtown Kirkland reminds me of downtown Edmonds or downtown Des Moines, in the sense that the downtown is on the water, in sort of an out of the way part of the city. Then there’s this other part of the city that’s more accessible and next to a bigger road or highway, where the city might want to encourage certain kinds of growth. In Kirkland, that’s Totem Lake next to 405. In Edmonds, it’s up on Hwy 99. In Des Moines, it’s up on Pac Hwy.
“But, Sam, how can you say Kirkland is exactly like Edmonds and Des Moines, when they don’t have a Google campus in their downtown?”
I never said Kirkland is exactly like those other towns. I said Downtown Kirkland reminds me of those other city’s downtowns in a geographical sense.
Downtown Kirkland reminds me of downtown Edmonds in the sense that the downtown is on the water.
You mean like a real city. Yeah, that is the point. We are so used to sprawling, soulless suburbs that real suburban cities seem weird. Yet they are normal and ideal. Sometimes they become part of the big city. A local example is Ballard. At one point it was its own little city. Now it is part of a much bigger city yet it retains its own unique character as a major neighborhood. You can walk around there and see obvious vestiges of its interesting history. It has changed dramatically over the years — both physically and culturally — yet it is still charming. It makes sense to build there (while retaining historical buildings) simply because it is fundamentally attractive.
Kirkland also has similar charm and history. Yet they have walled off development so that only a few people can actually enjoy it. The only housing available is single family housing and the prices for even the small houses are extremely high: https://www.redfin.com/WA/Kirkland/1513-3rd-Pl-98033/home/463064.
Instead they encourage growth close to the freeway or right next to major highways. Even then they do it wrong. It is really kind of funny when you look at the zoning map and find the Totem Lake area. It is easy to assume that the big white area surrounding the high density areas is a river or lake. Then it becomes clear that it is a freeway. You can just hear a European asking “Why didn’t you do it the normal way and have low density close to the freeway and high density behind it?”. Because we just do things backwards in this country.
Ross, where do you think Des Moines should focus its growth? In the downtown marina area, or up by the KDM Link station by Pac Hwy and I-5?
Ross, where do you think Des Moines should focus its growth? In the downtown marina area, or up by the KDM Link station by Pac Hwy and I-5?
I have no idea. I’ve never been to Des Moines. It is a pretty small and distant suburb. It is not like Kirkland. But just by looking at the map I would say … both? The train is following the freeway so I guess it makes sense to try and put lipstick on that pig by adding a few apartments there. At the same time if you want the city to grow in a sensible and attractive way then develop your core (down by the water).
Kirkland is different. Totem Lake isn’t getting a train. It is awkward to serve with buses. In contrast the area of Central Kirkland that should be developed sits between the area that was developed (just to the south) and Juanita. (At least they got Juanita right.) A bus traveling this section here should run by hundreds of apartments, not a few dozens houses: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z9EcDgsYvvmWPYyf8. That is obviously strong transit corridor. Central Kirkland is a better place for transit-oriented development just as it is a better place for development in general.
A curious thing to me about RapidRide K is that it parallels Stride north of Downtown Bellevue. Is it going to work as a long-distance limited-stop route or is it merely going to feed Stride? Given Stride’s rather hostile and somewhat inconvenient freeway median stops, I could see some transit riders preferring RapidRide K all the way to Downtown Bellevue. It may even take more riders away from Stride than it adds.
Another issue: Long routes can have a tough time staying on schedule. I can’t help but feel that the route design is trying to do too much. I’m not sure how reliable these buses will be. Eastside arterials can get congested! I’m also not sure if many will ride through Downtown Bellevue. So I wonder if the segment to Bellevue College should do something else and have different termini for this reliability reason.
My general suggestion is to get the Stride system up and running (in addition to full Link 2 Line) before locking in too much on this RapidRide corridor. However, this shakes the more fundamental challenge that Metro and ST like to plan projects somewhat independently.
A transit integration working group jointly sponsored by Metro, ST and the Cities is what I think is most needed (rather than each agency being a lead on different transit projects) and it needs riders of different abilities as part of that group too. That working group could look into some of these issues and give direction based on analysis. This blog shouldn’t have to function as the de facto working group because the parties involved won’t officially embrace a more systemic approach. Too often, a transit agency or city in our region just designs what they want project by project — without a cohesive system for riders being developed first.
It’s a different transit market from Stride. It serves all the in-between areas Stride doesn’t. For instance, the two hospitals in Bellevue, the Bellevue library, close to the Spring District, whatever might be around Northup Way if it ever grows up, the miles of condos and waterfront parks along Lake Washington Boulevard (the Eastside’s first density, built in the 1980s or earlier), downtown Kirkland (which Stride 2 DOESN’T SERVE), etc.
The majority of trips will be between downtown Bellevue and downtown Kirkland, for the same reason the majority of Link North trips are between downtown Seattle and Northgate. So most people won’t be taking Stride from Bellevue to Bothell or Lynnwood, or taking the K and transferring to Stride. They’ll be taking Stride to 85th or Totem Lake and walking to their destination, or taking the K and walking to their destination, or taking Stride to 85th and the TBD Redmond-Kirkland route to downtown Kirkland or Redmond, or the other buses in Kirkland or Bellevue. Only a minority will go to Bothell or Lynnwood in any form.
We still need Stride 2 for those who are going to Bothell or Lynnwood or Woodinville, or can take a one-seat Stride ride to Totem Lake or 85th, or are transferring from Link or Stride 1 to Stride 2. Those Link+Stride and Stride+Stride transfers are above and beyond the ridership we considered earlier in the rest of Kirkland. But Stride+K transfers to Kirkland won’t be that common. The other end of the K will have Stride+K transfers to Bellevue College.
The K’s Bellevue-Kirkland travel time is short enough that some people will tolerate it, so some people will take the K, and others will take Stride and walk.
“My general suggestion is to get the Stride system up and running (in addition to full Link 2 Line) before locking in too much on this RapidRide corridor.”
RapidRide K has little to do with Stride 2. There’s no reason to hold it up for Stride. Stride’s stations are well known, and we can estimate its ridership based on what’s within walking distance of them. That leaves 90% of Kirkland’s geography out, and that’s what the K and 255 and other routes serve.
The K had to choose between Lake Washington Blvd vs 108th, serving the South Kirkland P&R or not, going into the P&R nor not, Market Street or 124th. That’s like the Ballard tradeoff: the D had to choose between 15th and 24th; it couldn’t do both. So Metro made those decisions on the K’s alignment, and regardless of whether they were the best decisions or not, that’s what we’re going to get.
A curious thing to me about RapidRide K is that it parallels Stride north of Downtown Bellevue. Is it going to work as a long-distance limited-stop route or is it merely going to feed Stride?
A little bit of both from what I can tell. As I mentioned in one of the comments there is the possibility of two frequent buses running on 85th (the RapidRide K and a truncated 250 running between Redmond and Kirkland). If they run in sync you could have 5 minute headways between the freeway bus stop and Downtown Kirkland during peak and 7.5 minute headways off-peak. I could easily see how someone could use that to get from Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue (let alone Lynnwood to Kirkland). Yes, it is a nasty transfer (literally in the middle of the freeway) but if you timed the Stride part you wouldn’t have much of a wait.
Totem Lake is complicated. Almost all of the big development is north of the lake itself. That is where you have the hospital, the transit center and several big apartment complexes. There are some apartments between the lake and 85th but not as many. There is also Lake Washington Institute of Technology and unfortunately it is on a different corridor. For the bulk of the people in the area the closest Stride bus stop would be the one at Totem Lake. As freeway stops go it is a good one but it may be too far of a walk for some people. For those close to the transit center there is the 255 (and occasionally another bus) but it still awkward.
Based on the map it looks like the K Line will go on 120th Avenue through there like this (https://maps.app.goo.gl/KxZnuvYbiNaYQXa98). If so I could easily see people taking the bus south even though it would probably always be faster to just walk to the bus stop by the freeway.
For those farther south it would make sense to take the bus south. At that point they could transfer to Stride or keep going if they are headed to Downtown Bellevue. Again it looks like Stride would be faster most of the time but a lot of people may just want the one-seat ride.
In my opinion the K Line should skip the Totem Lake transit center, go over the freeway and end at Kingsgate Park and Ride. That is the plan for the 930 (although it makes a loop through the transit center). The RapidRide K would still make all the connections (and still serve the hospital) but it would also connect to Stride at the north end. For riders heading north (e. g. to UW Bothell) this would be a huge time savings. The 255 would still end over at the transit center. Basically you would have a pair of transit centers on each side of the freeway so that every bus makes a connection to Stride.
Of course a lot of trips will have nothing to do with Stride but it makes sense to maximize the speed of ST’s investment. My guess is it will take the K Line over 40 minutes to get from Totem Lake to Downtown Bellevue. Stride should to it in about 10. That is a savings worth transferring to.
Yeah it doesn’t really make sense to not run along the planned K line route to try to build some ridership.
Perhaps it’s the routing near Totem Lake. The 239 still can’t go through Totem Lake Village and makes a gigantic detour to head south; it’s been like that for multiple years.
Also on the southern end the 271/245 still can’t go down Snoqualmie River Rd… These seem like really obvious low-hanging fruit for transit service.
spokaneresident, how is housing in Spokane doing? How has it changed in the past three years since the pandemic subsided? Ross has been talking about how Spokane upzoned citywide to eliminate the very low density category. (What are the specifics? Does it exceed the newer state standard?) How has housing responded to that?
Briefly – I may be able to come back to this later – I just read in the local forum that building permits for multifamily housing have smashed all records this last year, following on another record the year before. I live close to downtown and can report one large building crane (for luxury units, only 36 of them, sadly) and one large downtown historic building being converted from office to apartments, which will add about 100 luxury units.
I did find the link! Here: https://www.krem.com/article/money/economy/boomtown-inland-northwest/boomtown-spokane-record-housing-permits/293-22876923-aef3-49b8-986c-5b96db285c58
In general, I do not think this will meaningfully improve affordability for Spokane residents, due to capitalist considerations (the companies would not be building if they did not think they could make a good profit). But I think we all know in our hearts that housing prices won’t come down until it all comes down, unfortunately! On the positive side, it does revitalize the housing stock, and adds to the local economy. All in all I am fairly happy with Spokane’s housing policy, and will support the candidates that continue it in this vein.
I cannot speak much to the past as I have only lived here a year so far. But if I come across anything else relevant, I will post it!
They can probably make a good profit with the existing prices. The fact that development is smashing records indicates there was pent-up demand.
Prices are sticky on the way down because nobody wants to take a loss. So it’s easier to slow down or stop price increases than it is to make them decrease. That’s the immediate purpose of all this new housing and why an upzoning was needed: to slow down or hopefully stop the price increases. The citywide and metro-wide average that is. Once we get that, then we can think about bringing them down. And people can try to afford that flattened level, and we can help them attain it, rather than having the prices slip up more and more out of reach every year.
What’s your impression of Spokane’s walkability? Is it still just downtown and around the WSU campus? Are the number and variety of walkable retail still not as much as they could be? Or are there signs of things getting better over a wider area?
How’s the City Line and its corridor doing? We’ve been watching and rooting for the City Line’s various bus and streetcar attempts for over a decade, although most of us haven’t seen the corridor or know exactly what’s there or which Pugetopolis corridor most resembles it. I walked the corridor from Browne’s addition to WSU, partly on the trail, but then I turned the wrong direction (west instead of east) and missed the rest of it to Spokane CC, so I don’t know what that part is like.
Wikipedia says a second RapidRide-like corridor is being built north-south on Division Street, to open by 2029. That feels like some of our recent and upcoming openings (RapidRide G, and near-future RapidRide and Stride lines), so it must be exciting.
Moved thread to 5/26 article.
The problem with Sound Transit, KC Metro. And plenty of commenters on here is they only think about a biased ridership dataset.
If you design for current ridership, you won’t get new riders. Obviously your projected ridership won’t be high for underserved areas unless you actually serve them!
The excuse that “ridership is too low” doesn’t make sense. People will ride if they actually get transit! They don’t have transit so why would they ride?