Over the past two weeks, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has updated signs along Aurora Ave N to convert the existing peak-hour bus lanes to 24/7 bus lanes. This change was introduced to help mitigate expected delays from increased travel on SR-99 as the result of WSDOT’s Revive I-5 project. While some of the I-5 work has been delayed until 2026, SDOT did not delay the bus lane update. These bus lanes are used by King County Metro’s RapidRide E Line, the busiest bus route in Washington State.
While the E Line travels on Aurora Ave between South Lake Union and N 200th St, the all-day bus lanes will span between N 38th St and N 115th St. The northbound bus lane has a gap between N 59th St and Winoma Ave N, where the northbound E Line detours to stop along Linden Ave N. This span (shown to the right) corresponds with the area affected most by Revive I-5, between downtown and Northgate.
Between 115th St and 200th St, the E Line will continue to use a mix of all-day bus lanes, peak-hour bus lanes, and general purpose lanes. South of 38th St, the Aurora Bridge does not have any transit priority lanes. On the other side of the Bridge, southbound trips use an all-day bus lane and northbound trips run in general traffic. Later this month, SDOT crews will install a northbound bus lane between Prospect St and Lynn St (shown below).
This is an open thread.
While this change is primarily about the E line, the 5 and 28 will benefit as well, as they use Aurora too through Queen Anne. This is really a no-brainer change that should have happened back when RapidRide E was first created, if not even earlier for the old 358 bus.
I was not in Seattle at the time, but I assume SDOT opted for peak only bus lanes to compromise with local business. Fortunately, all recently installed bus lanes are 24/7. SDOT should also upgrade the remaining peak only bus lanes to 24/7 (especially for RR D on Elliott and 15th).
That great as long as the lane is enforced. HOV/Bus lane enforcement is rare in Seattle even though there’s extensive violations.
Metro and SDOT are being played with this. Remember that Metro’s first stance on Revive I-5 congestion was a demand that WSDOT fund actual service hours. WSDOT promptly said “no” and opted for a short delay.
Now comes Plan B, put some signs up on Aurora and slap down a little more paint. Easy, cheap, and completely within the WSDOT domain.
But it is also somewhat ineffectual. Bikes are still allowed, left turning vehicles are still allowed, and delivery vans will be allowed to park in the bus lane off peak! None of this is going to fully offset the effect of significantly increased congestion.
Na. The only way to truly avoid the increased congestion of Revive I-5 is to jump on Link. Fast, frequent, reliable, and congestion free.
I’ll be using Link.
Yes, because RapidRide E riders are only heading to Downtown, and not other points along Aurora or SLU, so of course heading to the train along the I-5 corridor is much more effective than taking the bus down Aurora. Silly SDOT! Silly Metro!
None of this is going to fully offset the effect of significantly increased congestion.
That remains to be seen. No one knows how many drivers will switch over to Aurora just because I-5 is down a couple lanes. The express lanes will still be heading north in the afternoon. Aurora has plenty of congestion as it is. The problem is that the buses are stuck in that congestion and now in several places they won’t be. It is quite possible this more than makes up for the extra congestion caused by the work on I-5.
The only way to truly avoid the increased congestion of Revive I-5 is to jump on Link.
You are missing the point. Link doesn’t go everywhere. Link is irrelevant if I’m trying to go from the west side of Green Lake (e. g. 65th & Aurora) to Licton Springs (90th & Aurora). What I want is for the RapidRide E to arrive on time and not be delayed because a lot of drivers are using Aurora instead of I-5. Same goes for a trip from one end of Phinney Ride to the other (using the 5). This is also true of riders on the 28.
There are only a handful of bus routes that go across the I-5 ship canal and most are operated by Sound Transit. These are the only buses that really compete with Link. None operate in the middle of the day. This is where things get interesting. I expect that riding those buses will be considerably slower in the morning (heading south) and much faster in the evening. The express lanes will go northbound the entire time this work is being done. That means no HOV lanes south of Northgate and a lot more traffic. It may take a very long time for the bus to get to downtown in the morning. But in the evening I expect the opposite. The buses will continue to do what they usually do which is to run in the HOV lane of the express lanes from downtown to Northgate. By the time they reach Northgate it is likely they encounter a lot fewer cars. Reducing the lanes will have a throttling effect on traffic to the north. Some drivers won’t bother with driving at all. They will avoid “car-megadon” by working from home or taking vacation. It is quite possible that the fastest way to commute from say, Everett to Seattle will be to take Link in the morning and a bus coming back.
It is not clear to me what effect this will have on weekday transit (other than those buses). Going across any of the drawbridges is really slow. Hard to see more drivers heading that way. My guess is there will be a few extra drivers on Aurora and the express lanes while plenty just slog their way on the two general purpose lanes.
Even for the weekend closures I don’t think it will be catastrophic. People will just switch to the express lanes (northbound). The typical southbound I-5 traffic jam will just start earlier in the day.
Erm, 65th and Aurora is on the *west* side of Green Lake…
Oops. Thanks for the correction. I’ll fix it.
Funding transit service hours should always be considered as one of the tools in the box when proposing mitigation plan for construction-related long-term lane reduction, but thing doesn’t really happen this way.
If transit’s effect to offset vehicular demand can be better documented and quantified, it actually helps WSDOT and its construction partners because more aggressive closure hours can be proposed which will ultimately shorten the overall construction period. Right now, certain closure can only take place over night or on the weekends with exception when there are major events.
Ross B: A lot of people switch over to Aurora when I-5 backs up more than usual north of the ship canal. This often causes bottlenecks around Green Lake (especially west-east streets) and also from the Aurora Bridge down to the tunnel entrance. Sometimes it gets so bad people try to divert through Fremont. This is likely to mainly affect the morning hours, since the SB express lanes will not be available (they will fixed as NB lanes). SB in the afternoon, it will probably be about the same situation as it is now.
WSDOT did fund extra bus service for years as mitigation for the viaduct demolition and tunnel building. It added runs to RapidRide E, and maybe to the C and D too.
But this time it didn’t. It’s a different era and the state has less money.
@Mike Orr,
“It’s a different era”
Yes, it is. But it isn’t necessarily an era of fiscal restraint on the part of the State.
When viaduct demolition and DBT reconnection began Link had only just recently been extended to Husky Stadium, which is not a good intercept point for DT bound commuters trying to avoid congestion on north Aurora.
But now Link extends all the way to Lynnwood and has supplanted most commuter bus service on the northern I-5 corridor. Link is also carrying many times the ridership as buses on similar routes, has much more capacity, and more closely follows I-5, which is where this congestion will be at its worst.
So it is only natural that this time WSDOT will rely heavily on Link to pick up most of the congestion load and not fund more bus service on Aurora. Or on I-5.
So Aurora gets some fancy new signs and some more red paint, Link takes up the bulk of the congestion relief, and WSDOT walks away happy. And hopefully the commuters do too.
It truly is a new era. The era of Link.
Now if we could just get an operational overlay from LCC to IDS. We are almost there……
A lot of people switch over to Aurora when I-5 backs up more than usual north of the ship canal.
Yes, I mentioned that. The point is we don’t know how many and whether these changes will make up for this or not. It is quite possible that people will adjust their driving accordingly. Some will drive earlier than usual. Others will avoid driving in at all. Some will take transit (especially Link). Previous “Car-meggadons” were not that big of a deal for this very reason. There was so much publicity that people adjusted accordingly. Meanwhile, these changes are significant. A fairly big stretch of northbound Aurora will now have BAT lanes. Midday service on the buses will be a little smoother since they won’t have to deal with parked cars. It is possible things will still be a mess for the buses but it is also possible that these changes will be more than enough and bus travel is better than usual.
In contrast when there is an accident it is a different story. People had already planned on driving. There isn’t that much they can do but just slog through it or try and find alternate ways. This often leads to a big mess.
It’s a different era and the state has less money.
I also think it is a different situation. The best example of when it makes sense to put money into service was when the West Seattle Bridge was down. There was a transit alternative and it was a significantly faster to get downtown from much of West Seattle. But the buses didn’t run that often or they required a transfer. Thus putting money into service so that lots of buses could go over the lower bridge was a good approach.
In this case the obvious alternative to driving I-5 is Link. It would be nice to run Link more often but ST doesn’t have the trains. From a driving perspective the alternative is Aurora. But taking Aurora buses isn’t a great alternative if you had planned on driving I-5. You could have extra buses that go west to Aurora and then back east to get on I-5 but there are no great ways to get east-west. What you really need is more right-of-way but they aren’t going to add bus-lanes on 85th (or 80th) within a month. Meanwhile, the buses that run along Aurora are relatively well funded.
It is difficult to come up with a band-aid solution when the issue is more systemic. People drive over the ship canal bridge for dozens of reasons. For example the other day we were discussing the Georgetown campus of South Seattle Community College. My neighbor used to commute to their. This means he drove over the (I-5) ship canal bridge. I asked him about taking transit and he said it just didn’t work well. I can relate. I had the same problem when taking transit from my house to Factoria. I’m sure things are a bit better now but these are types of trips that are still difficult with transit given the lack of bus service and limited build-out of Link. As a result people drive. WSDOT could throw some money at service but it would be like spitting on a fire. Ultimately we need a much better network and that involves better routing and more money than WSDOT is likely to give us.
In the case of the Georgetown Campus of South Seattle College, better service to closer stops could be had on the 60 and 124 by using Corson both ways, and by having the 131 cross the 14th Ave Bridge instead of the reliability-killing 1st Ave Bridge.
HOV/Bus lane enforcement is rare in Seattle
Bus lanes and BAT lanes should be enforced with cameras on the buses. HOV lanes are a bit trickier (it is harder to determine how many people are in the car). But it can be done and should be done more often.
It is difficult to enforce BAT lane where business access is densely spaced. You cannot prove BAT lane violation just by photo record. You’ll have to have a video to prove someone is violating it. Sometimes people could really merge into BAT lane because they think they are very close to their driveway.
A good way to enforce BAT lane to use extensive striping to make passenger vehicles drivers to think the lane is right-turn only, but that might not work for frequent commuter. A more extreme measure I imagine is to have some raised bump in the middle of the lane that is just high enough so that passenger vehicle cannot pass without hitting the chassis, but that could be a legal nightmare for SDOT.
I actually feel like people cheat a lot less on HOV and bus lane in Seattle compared to my experience in east coast. The biggest problem is probably the HOV bypass at freeway on-ramp. That’s a low-risk cheating with big benefit returned. That’s why IWSDOT has stopped planning that.
You cannot prove BAT lane violation just by photo record. You’ll have to have a video to prove someone is violating it.
That is pretty much the default anyway. The cameras on buses shoot videos not pictures.
The reality is that there was no need for enforcement previously because very few people realized they could use the bus lane during the times it was permitted by the signage. I had free run on the bus lanes because no one read or understand the signage with all the exceptions it specified. I bet most of the people who think there should have been more enforcement had no idea you were permitted to use those lanes as specified on that signage. Additionally, I very rarely saw a bus held up by car traffic in the bus lane. Sorry, but it rarely happened.
This 4:30-5pm on a weekday, its definitely within that 3-6pm HOV time.
This will have very little impact. Certainly it makes sense on the portion of Aurora that is essentially limited access, but not as much through the business district near Green Lake, where parked cars give a small sense of safety to pedestrians behind them on the sidewalk (and access to walk-in businesses there).
What’s galling though is that at the same time they’re making this performative change, they’re wrecking the function of the bus lanes by instituting no-right-turn-on-red. With right-turn restrictions, the bus will now be stuck behind right-turning cars that have to wait almost to the end of a green cycle for pedestrians to clear before turning right. This is especially irritating when there’s an opposing left turn cycle, which is a safe time to turn right, but the city was too cheap to put in right-turn signals. The increase in delay for the E line will be significant, accumulating at every light, but it’s not clear the city has factored any of that into their policy-making.
Parked cars along Aurora force the bus to switch lanes. Even when traffic isn’t especially heavy this is a delay.
With right-turn restrictions, the bus will now be stuck behind right-turning cars that have to wait almost to the end of a green cycle for pedestrians to clear before turning right.
Or they change lanes just like they have to do with a parked car. The big difference is that a driver has some flexibility with cars turning — they can anticipate the situation and just decide to wait it out (if there aren’t that many pedestrians crossing). In contrast with a parked car the bus doesn’t have the option of just waiting.
The long term solution is center-running buses but that will take a while to implement.
I agree about the no RTOR signs. SDOT appears to be installing the no RTOR signs without research or even basic thinking. For example, I see them in places where they probably get no more than 10 right turns a day or in places with no history of any right turning accidents.
It’s a similar problem with the leading interval walk signs. I see them varying anywhere from 2 to 7 seconds depending on the intersection. Every intersection phase crossing MLK seems to have a different lead time, for example.
It’s as if the SDOT staff believes that they must do something universally new every so often to justify that they’re doing something. So they pursue these things universally, don’t do before and after studies — then double down on implementing one more new thing when the accident problem doesn’t abate.
Meanwhile, public noncompliance gets more rampant and goes increasingly unpunished. By having so many restrictions at so many intersections, the chances of getting caught at a single one diminish. I see them disregarded all the time now.
The accident risk is coming from distracted driving (and walking and bicycling) and overly aggressive drivers (and some pedestrians and bicyclists). There are specific high-accident intersections each with unique design problems (blind corners, signal coordination, impatience from long signal waiting — especially when it takes 3-4 red lights to get through). Making high-accident intersections safer may not be cheap or easy, but putting in universal strategies in other places avoids the bigger danger that people face, and wastes time and money.
Mere signs don’t change that. Adding more delay at every intersection still adds CO pollution and brake particle pollution to nearby residences and businesses too.
It strikes me as SDOT staff are being knee-jerk and amateurish — and apparently implementing things without even basic data analysis and sometimes without even paying attention. It feels like the adult version of being giddy about a new way to control other people.
The Seattle traffic accident cam channel on YouTube is revealing of the risky and dangerous behavior from people. Most accidents seem to be the fault of risk-taking people — not of lack of regulation. (https://m.youtube.com/@SeattleTrafficCams)
No right on red is the default in Seattle:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/05/04/no-right-turn-on-red-is-now-the-default-in-seattle/
I’m glad that’s the case. Right now it’s in a half-implemented state where drivers don’t know whether or not they can take a right on red and I’d rather that drivers just get used to waiting at red lights.
I’m sure everyone’s had the experience of a driver cutting off pedestrians by taking a right while looking to the left. I’ve had that happen to me my entire life; I don’t cross the street with the walk sign unless I see right turning cars come to a complete stop.
It might make sense to make an exception on Aurora but I’d rather see the change happen first and roll it back if there are major issues.
> Mere signs don’t change that. Adding more delay at every intersection still adds CO pollution and brake particle pollution to nearby residences and businesses too.
This has been largely disproven.
It is not always about the right-turn demand. It is the demand on the major approach that governs this decision.
Also, at places where sight distance is very bad or foot/bike traffic is heavy, you will implement a no turn on red there no matter what’s the right-turn demand.
A lot of city block has narrow sidewalk and little buffer between building and road, that decision sight distance is usually not idea for RTOR.
“Mere signs don’t change that. Adding more delay at every intersection still adds CO pollution and brake particle pollution to nearby residences and businesses too.”
It is unlikely you won’t need to stop at an intersection where RTOR is permitted. RTOR allows right-turn traffic moves as if it is a stop-controlled intersection. So you will need to stop, look for conflicting movements and then go. Emission-wise, it makes little difference because the emission trigger is the acceleration rather than idling for most normal passenger vehicles.
If you look how “No turn on red” started in the US and how few of other countries are doing this, you will realize this is a ridiculous default setting that is really nurturing a more car-centric environment. I am sure that’s not what you sign up for.
SDOT appears to be installing the no RTOR signs without research
There are plenty of studies that show that banning right turn on red reduces pedestrian and bike accidents. For example this one: https://ite.ygsclicbook.com/pubs/itejournal/2022/may-2022/live/index.html/#p=42. You probably don’t know this because you probably are not a traffic engineer. My guess is the traffic engineers are well aware of the studies though (it is their job).
Guys, I’m not saying that banning RTOR doesn’t reduce accidents in general . I’m only saying that it makes no difference at many intersections. And I’m saying that its overuse leads to more noncompliance.
High hazard intersections need to be made safer by making drivers more aware that it’s a particularly dangerous place. That’s especially true when there are lots of pedestrians.
If every intersection is approached as a high hazard intersection, it seems to be only human nature to not pay more attention when you’re at a high hazard intersection.
People make dangerous and stupid maneuvers all the time. They check text messages, obsess on map direction apps, and eat a sandwich while driving. They drive drunk or sleepy. They are late for some appointment or to pick up their kid. They think traffic laws don’t apply to them. These are pretty much the causes of most traffic accidents.
Surely it’s crossed your mind that some intersections are much more dangerous than others. Shouldn’t these be more clearly identifiable and shouldn’t more drivers be made aware of them? When every intersection is treated similarly all over town, it diminishes the need for extra cautiousness when someone is at a particularly dangerous intersection. That’s all I’m saying.
I don’t know, it seems to be well established that no right turn on red is generally safer than allowing right turn on red, especially for pedestrians. Is there any instance where no right turn on red was proven to be less safe? Also, if there are only a few cars making the turn anyway, it is a small impact on traffic flow.
I see it as “opt in” vs “opt out”.
For a long time, the standard has been to allow things that might be dangerous. And to only later on restrict them in the most dangerous cases. That essentially prioritizes driver throughput over pedestrian safety.
The other approach is to forbid something which might be dangerous. And then only allow it in the most safe cases. That prioritizes pedestrian safety over driver throughout.
In other parts of the world, the latter approach is standard. But it’s never been the default in the US which is why it gets so much pushback when it’s proposed.
I agree. In my experience taking the E off-peak, it is rarely cars in the bus lane that causes delay. It is usually right turning cars waiting for pedestrians. However, no turn on red isn’t the problem. That’s a safety measure that’s be demonstrated to work. We shouldn’t need to wait for a collision to require it.
What SDOT should do is one of two things: (1) In a road diet, turn the right lane into a permanent right turn only/parking/trees lane. Buses travel to the left of that in a lane that can only go straight. (2) Force right turns from the general purpose lane (second from the right), and timing a white bar bus only signal with the leading pedestrian interval. Install a flashing yellow right turn signal to remind drivers to yield to buses. Bus drivers need to proceed slowly through these intersections but it beats waiting for a car to turn.
Having the cars turn right from the middle lane seems like a novel idea but my guess is it is rare because of the obvious risk of collision. There are other options. One is to make every right a controlled right. You can’t take a right unless you have a right arrow. Unfortunately this would greatly increase the traffic-light cycle, delaying buses (and everyone else).
It would take less work to just run the buses in the middle of the street (https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/segment3_busway.png?w=987&ssl=1). To do that fully on Aurora would require “reimagining” the roadway. It would mean that the section that is limited access (between Green Lake and downtown) would become like a normal roadway. Pedestrians (and bikes) would be able to cross at every intersection (or at least where there are bus stops). So a street like Aloha would look like Thomas (except without cars being able to cross). This would be a lot of work.
On the other hand if you had center running starting at Green Lake it wouldn’t be as difficult. Pedestrians can already cross here. Accessing bus stops in the middle of the street would be easy (just like it is on Madison). Thus the change would not be as dramatic. It wouldn’t require much work. The transition from curbside to middle running would also be easy to achieve given the bus route. Northbound it would start at Winona, where the bus rejoins Aurora. Southbound would occur in much the same place. The last center bus stop would be at 76th (a couple blocks north of Winona). The center bus lanes would fade away while a curbside lane would start soon after. The bus would just change lanes a couple times before the next stop which is at 65th (half a mile away).
Transitioning back would be an issue unless Shoreline decided to join in our efforts. It would make sense to extend this all the way to the end of the RapidRide E. But even without that it would be worth it.
For better or for worse we don’t need to wait for collisions here – Aurora Ave is and has been one of the most dangerous streets in Seattle. I remember seeing something like 10-20% of all traffic deaths happen on Aurora
If right on red is banned, it seems reasonable to add a right turn arrow during phases when the turn is protected due to a left turn arrow on the other street. I guess the problem is that it costs money.
Yes, like they did at 5th NE & Northgate Way (which makes it easier for the bus to get through the intersection). This would mainly apply to major intersections (like 80th) not minor ones (like 77th) because the latter don’t have left turn arrows for the cross streets (https://maps.app.goo.gl/bN1YWeKS7X9FtwsD8). The two go together. You are more likely to have backups when people are turning onto major streets.
It is not clear how often this is a big problem on Aurora. In general there aren’t huge numbers of pedestrians walking along Aurora. That is probably why they haven’t made it a priority. But it wouldn’t hurt.
Yeah it would be great but cost money. It could also stay red or flash yellow for pedestrians. I saw a good video on this a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsX0m2pwo94
I’m not following the arguments about pedestrians. During left turn phases, there is no pedestrian crossing anyway.
SDOT did install a right turn only signal head for southbound Rainier turning right onto Alaska (shared bus and right turn lane). It keeps the Route 7 buses getting stuck behind a right turning driver.
The free right that is mentioned in John’s video is a bit different. I assume the same thing exists in Latvia as in Estonia. There is a paragraph on the subject in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_on_red (search for “Latvia”). Bottom line: I’m not driving in The Baltics. Anyway, it is clever and if you know the rules I’m sure it is reasonably safe.
In any event what asdf2 is talking about is much simpler. Consider the intersection that Al mentioned. Someone is on Alaska and wants to make a left turn (onto Rainier). They wait at this light. They are only allowed to make that left when that left turn arrow is green. When that arrow turns green people aren’t allowed to cross Rainier (otherwise the car turning left would run into them). At this point you might as well allow cars to turn right from Rainier to Alaska. You haven’t added anything to the light cycle. Nor have you endangered pedestrians. It is mostly just a matter of adding those lights.
That’s possible if you have a dedicated right-turn lane and more than two receiving lane. Such signal phasing exists in other country, but I guess in the US there is concern of merging conflict between right and opposite left. People sometimes don’t enter the leftmost lane when turning left. That can create a conflict with right turn from opposite direction.
That’s possible if you have a dedicated right-turn lane and more than two receiving lane.
That is yet another scenario. First let me explain the situation that asdf2 and I are talking about. I’ll use Northgate Way and 5th NE because they have it there. The Google Maps also show the turn lanes. All the left turns are protected — you can only turn left when you have a left-turn arrow. Now consider what happens when cars on Northgate Way turn left. There is no walk signal in any direction. It is at this point it is safe to turn right from 5th NE to Northgate Way (not the other way around). There is no conflict with pedestrians. Cars don’t have to merge after turning. That is why they added the right-turn arrow there. So basically you can turn right from 5th while cars are turning left from Northgate Way or more broadly you can turn right from street X while cars are turning left from street Y.
In contrast it would be different if you wanted to turn right from Northgate Way while drivers are turning left from Northgate Way. That would mean cars from both directions would be going to 5th at the same time. I think that is the scenario you mentioned and yes, it is problematic.
@Ross
Yes, that’s definitely a good example for right-turn signal. I was trying to point out situations where you cannot install a right-turn signal and failed to exclude the scenario as you described from my response.
The challenge of implementing split phasing structure everywhere is that at many intersections, left-turn volumes are a lot lower than through volumes, so running through and left as separate phases is more efficient, but if you do that, that leaves no real protected phase for right-turn unless you specifically create one.
See illustration in https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/traffic-signals/phasing-examples/ for Split phase and others.
My point is simply that RTOR will increase bus delay considerably, substantially diminishing the value of having a bus lane in the first place. It seems not to have been factored into the decision (and I’m guessing has not been factored into scheduled running times).
I’m personally skeptical banning RTOR will make a significant difference to pedestrian safety (jaywalkers crossing against the light when RTOR is relevant are in full view of the driver), but that’s not the argument I’m making.
My point is simply that RTOR will increase bus delay considerably
Isn’t most of Aurora already this way? Most of the Google Streetview maps are from several years ago but this one is from October of last year and it clearly shows no right on red. The only document I can find about RTOR is this one that suggests it will be done by 2023. You are implying that they are adding no right turn on red (NRTOR) at the same time they are adding BAT lanes and that doesn’t seem to be the case at all.
If NRTOR exists now then your argument is not valid. Of course the traffic modeling takes into account the current roadway conditions. BAT lanes still help even if a car can’t turn right on red.
If you want to argue that it would be better to reverse NRTOR be my guest (although I think you would have better luck yelling at clouds). But that doesn’t mean that adding BAT lanes is useless.
I saw those new signs too!
Based on the recent news, it sounds like there is no official date for when this starts becoming all-day bus lane. It just really depends on when the new signs are installed. Is that right?
The East Link Extension Fare Equity Analysis gives a preview of the STX restructure next year on Page 29: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Report%20-%20East%20Link%20Extension%20Title%20VI%20Service%20and%20Fare%20Equity%20Analysis%20-%2006-05-25.pdf
I assume this isn’t a final plan given that the 2026 service plan hasn’t been shared yet but this may be a preview of what to expect. Appears that most changes will occur in the fall.
The 510/515 will be discontinued and service hours reallocated to the 513/535.
On the east side, only the 542 and 556 remain for cross-lake travel.
And in the south, the 560, 566, 574, 592, and 596 remain with the vast majority of the hours being reallocated to the 574.
Thanks for sharing this!
-So it proposes running 556 as the Bellevue to Issaquah route and deleting 554? That’s new compared to what was released previously. Now I wonder if the new all-day 556 will still go to U-District or it just looks exactly like the modified 554 in the previous plan.
-How come 560 only have 200 service hours September 2025 and Mar 2026 while 566 has 600+? That’s probably a mistake right?
I would take the specifics with a grain of salt. There is nothing in there about routing specifics. For example the 512 looks like all it did was get a reduction in service over the years. But what really happened is that it is no longer going between Northgate and Lynnwood. That is where the savings occurred.
Based on the table it looks like there would be no 578. Hard to imagine they would open Federal Way Link and not run buses from Puyallup, Sumner and Auburn to Federal Way.
The more interesting number to me is how much the agency is spending on current routes. As of right now they are spending more on the 574 than the 594. This means that theoretically you could boost the 594 to run every fifteen minutes (in the middle of the day) by just axing the 574 (at no additional cost). The only additional cost would be having the 594 stop at Federal Way along the way but that would be fairly cheap. At worse you end up running the bus every twenty minutes (or only running to Lakewood every other trip).
So the 556 would be like the proposed 554 but extended to the U-District? That would be a gain, not a loss. We’ve been wondering whether ST would really delete express Bellevue-UDistrict service.
“Based on the table it looks like there would be no 578. Hard to imagine they would open Federal Way Link and not run buses from Puyallup, Sumner and Auburn to Federal Way.”
I can’t imagine ST eliminating bus service to entire cities. The subarea is paying taxes for it. Maybe there will be a new route to Federal Way that’s not on the chart.
Is there any chance that 574 is the only one left because the other ST routes that aren’t supposed to be completely deleted will be made up by Pierce Transit’s new service after light rail extends to Federal Way?
I can’t imagine ST eliminating bus service to entire cities.
I agree. That is why I would caution people not to read too much into this. It isn’t an actual route plan. It is a service and fare equity analysis based on a very rough estimate of the changes. Many of the changes are bad ideas if you take them literally. For example the plan is to increase service on the 574. So that means running the bus from SeaTac to Federal Way a lot more often just as Link goes from SeaTac to Federal Way. Of course they won’t do that. Even if they decide to truncate all the buses from the south at Federal Way and call the main bus the 574 it won’t operate the way the existing 574 does. It would be a different bus in all but name.
My guess is they painted with broad strokes just to see if there any areas that they needed to be worried about. In general there isn’t. They may have to do this again when they actually make the specific route changes but my guess is they will still be well within the specified guidelines.
Is there any chance that 574 is the only one left because the other ST routes that aren’t supposed to be completely deleted will be made up by Pierce Transit’s new service after light rail extends to Federal Way?
If I understand your question correctly the answer is “no chance”. There is no way that Pierce Transit will run buses to Seattle (like the 590, 592, 594). But again, I wouldn’t freak out about the plan at this point. This is all very rough — they don’t even say where these routes will go. That would imply that the routes are unchanged which just doesn’t make any sense. There is no way they are going to run the 574 from Federal Way to SeaTac.
Pierce transit can barely run local service. Even its flagship 1-digit routes have 30-60 minute service some or most of the time, and most other routes can’t get above 30 minutes and are 60 minutes weekends which makes them unusable. The thought that PT has a huge number of service hours it could spend on expresses to downtown Seattle is ludicrous. It could maybe do a smaller step of Puyallup-FW and Puyallup-Auburn expresses, but first it should really address the frequency on its primary core routes.
Eliminating the 594 is not going to go over well. You just almost doubled the trip from Tacoma to Seattle for the majority of transit users.
Agreed.
That has always been the big question: whether Metro would delete the 577 and 594. They were gone in all the planning scenarios in January 2016, but ST never made a decision or said anything more about the issue,
I agree Mike. They still haven’t made a decision and it is still early in the planning process (even though the station isn’t that far away). The big question is whether they will run buses to Seattle from south of Federal Way.
Yep. Regardless of which buses, nobody outside of ST is pushing for the elimination of off-peak express bus service among Tacoma, Federal Way, and Seattle.
This doesn’t appear to be an open thread. My apologies.
It is an open thread. We just forgot to put that tag at the bottom because we’re still getting used to the new column. All Friday Roundups are open threads. One of the reasons for the column is to bridge the gap between the Wednesday and Sunday open threads, and so the comments section doesn’t get into hundreds of messages, which is harder to navigate on mobile.
My mistake, thanks for clarifying and updating the post Mike.
@Cam Solomon,
Do you have a sense of whether Tacomans would prefer the current 594 at the current frequency, or a more frequent 594 that stops at Federal Way Station, and replaces the 577 portion of the 578 (which would presumably also get a frequency bump.
Hopefully sub-area equity won’t impact the path decisions.
Thanks for sharing. I have lots of questions and comments. But I’ll force myself to hold off until an open thread or a targeted post about it. No doubt that ST will have probably its most radical service change ever by mid 2026.
It is an open thread.
I had a timing question about driver hours based on this table mentioned in the post.
The 2 line adds many hours so many more train drivers will be needed. The ST Express hours are getting similarly slashed so fewer bus drivers will be needed. The new train drivers will be needed a few months before the bus drivers will no longer be needed because of simulation l. Also, several ST Express routes getting dropped include several operated by CT or PT drivers while train drivers work for KCM.
So what are these places doing about staffing plans? Is attrition enough to cover the lost bus drivers in the next 7-12 months or will there be layoffs? Is ST offering bus drivers first dibs on being a train driver? Could ST drop Route 515 before dropping the Eastside ST Express routes?
The driver assignment challenge seems like one good reason why openings are best done in stages. I could see the needed additional train drivers to simulate Federal Way Link in 2026 coming from ST Express drivers that were assigned to Route 550 for example. I could also see how ST may drop Route 515 once 2 Line trains are running on the west side as cross-lake simulation begins bulot before the full line opens. I don’t know how much time it takes to train a bus driver to be a train driver, but it seems easier to drive a train so I can’t imagine that training (unintentional pun) will take very long for an existing bus driver.
I would think that being a train driver would be more appealing than being a bus driver. Train drivers are more protected from the public encounters and have few hazards to worry about compared to bus drivers.
I think the bus drivers that used to work for Metro (e. g. the drivers operating the 550) will simply be reassigned to Metro routes. I would assume that is factored into Metro’s plans. This is where the bulk of the ST Express service reduction will occur. The same is probably true for Pierce and Community Transit. In both cases the reduction of service is pretty small. Community Transit can probably absorb it but Pierce Transit may not be able to do so (given their budget problems).
I would assume they have been training Link drivers for a while now or at the very least have a plan to ramp up fairly quickly. I don’t know if there is much overlap. I could see someone switching from one job to the other (especially if there is a pension) but otherwise they are just different jobs.
As far as fares go, I wonder if Pierce Transit is considering a general fare increase, that could be timed to starting to accept the Subsidized Annual Pass; and a fare increase for DART to $2, to align with Kitsap and Everett, perhaps setting the stage for a $4 Paratransit Regional Day Pass.
“1 Line trains will run test operations during regular service on Friday, June 13 from 5 AM to 9 AM. Please check train head signs before boarding.
“Test trains will run between Lynnwood and Stadium on 4-minute headways in both directions alongside regular service. Trains with “Out of Service” head signs will briefly pause at stations but doors will remain closed. This testing will help us prepare for more frequent service once the 2 Line crosses Lake Washington and extends to Lynnwood City Center.
During the testing hours, we will not display estimated train arrival times on the overhead digital signs.” — ST email alert.
A few weeks ago, I noticed that 2 Line was shown on the new route diagrams as running between Lynnwood and CID — even though the cross-lake section was covered over.
The fact that now ST is testing the 4 minute headways further suggests to me that ST wants to verify that they can actually operate the promised frequency now rather than wait until cross-lake trains are running on their own power.
While not confirmed, these two things suggests to me that riders will be on 2 line trains between Lynnwood and CID before the cross-lake opening day.
This sounds like a great plan during Revive I-5, except to run the interspersed trains in revenue service.
I’m curious where the extra trains are being stored, and where the extra staff are being pulled from. Will ST Express 510 and 515 be temporarily shut down?
The LAX Metro Transit Center Station opened at 5 pm today. They will have frequent shuttles connecting the LAX horseshoe. The rail peoplemover opens next year to be even more seamless for anyone flying to or from LAX.
It’s about time!
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/lax-transit-center-station-opens/amp/
https://laist.com/news/transportation/la-metro-airport-station-guide
Getting to Downtown LA starting this evening will be one ride to this station and one rail transfer either north at Expo/ Crenshaw to transfer (K/E) or east to Willowbrook/ Rosa Parks to transfer (C/A).
The same number of transfers can get a rider to Santa Monica, Long Beach, Pasadena, East LA or Azusa too.
Security and cleanliness issues notwithstanding, this makes any upcoming LA trip a game changer for me! I hate driving in LA congestion.
I feel like the most frustrating part of journey From/to LAX is actually at those terminal driveways. There was this time it took my Flyaway bus at least 30 minutes to got out of the airport and entered I-105 freeway.
So I am all looking forward to the opening of the people mover.
That’s a common problem at pretty much any airport that relies on buses to reach the terminal. Boston, for example, the T is great once you get on it, but the shuttle bus takes seemingly forever to stop at all 5 terminals before you get to the T.
Before Link existed, this was a problem at SeaTac too. Granted, with only one terminal stop, it wasn’t nearly as bad, but the bus still got stuck in traffic, and still took a long time to load and unload, once it finally arrived at the stop. This is a big reason, why the 194, in spite of taking I-5 nonstop all the way to SODO, was still no faster than Link, in practice, once routine, but unscheduled, delays were factored into account. The same problem still exists for the 560 and 574.
Yeah it’s great that the Metro station is now in place — but that internal peoplemover system is certainly another key game changer. I really hate using the horseshoe.
I think that there have been some things implemented to reduce the horseshoe congestion recently though. I don’t know if it’s better than a few years ago.
The peoplemover contract was awarded in 2019 with a 2023 targeted opening date. It kept getting pushed over and over again. In 2022 it was pushed to 2024. Now it’s set for 2026. It will connect not only the terminals, but also the rental car garage and remote parking.
There were several reasons for the delay. It’s a real soap opera. At its core there have been contract disputes between the airport and the contractor.
East Link cross-lake service isn’t the only three year rail transit delay in the US.
“ That’s a common problem at pretty much any airport that relies on buses to reach the terminal.”
Even with rail transit, the connection is not always seamless. Link doesn’t require landside people mover transfer, but walking distance is still not perfect. Airport like LAX certainly deserve a light rail station or two within walking distance to terminals even if that means the track has to terminate at LAX.
Because for large airport there is always an airport authority overseeing the planning and operation, it creates some coordination barrier for planning a rail station that is truly inside the airport.
I think in the US, MARTA probably has the most seamless connection to landside terminal for a heavy rail. That’s one of few good things I’d say about this system.
I recall Alan Fisher or someone else had a video about that.
Parking was terrible on my block of aurora before this change, now I need to park a couple blocks away from my house, not just a block away. There’s 4 apartment complexes and 1 townhouse like building on my block. They were considering using an empty lot to put in a hotel, which had no plans for parking clearly stated in the development plans. Bro, I’m just trying to park my car.
You don’t care about parking your car enough to pay for an off-street space, so why complain?
If there were an option for an off street space I would, champ.
Urban street parking, especially where there are apartments, is not designed for long-term residential parking – there is simply not enough space for everyone’s cars. They are designed for visitors and local retail customers. Apartment buildings and hotels that do not provide parking are *not* designed for you to park on the street – they are designed to suit the needs of people whose lifestyle and job location do not require a car at all. If you do need your car for work or other reasons, I’m sorry that the apartment management didn’t communicate this clearly to you and encourage you to look for a more suitable place to live given your needs.
It is quite possible that a lot of these areas are in a transition when it comes to parking. There is not enough demand to justify building parking garages like they have in a lot of other neighborhoods. Enough people feel like they can just park on the street. At the same time street parking is becoming more difficult. The author of the comment never said where they were. It doesn’t seem like there is a lot of paid parking on Aurora unlike a lot of other neighborhoods (Greenwood, Ballard, Northgate, etc.). This suggests that there just wasn’t demand until recently. This may change although parking “a couple blocks away” seems relatively trivial. If there was a parking garage it would probably be farther away.
Street parking along Aurora accounts for a very tiny amount of the overall potential parking since it is only one street. It is roughly one quarter of the curbside parking. A garage or lot is bound to have a lot more space. They never allowed you to park overnight anyway. The impact on parking is minimal, even though it is frustrating to see all those spots.
It reminds me of load/unload parking. As you circle around the block you see the open spot and get excited. But then you realize you can’t park there. You wish they would allow everyone to park there. But if they did, chances are you would still be out of luck. You’ve driven by several dozen parking spots, all of them occupied. The idea that this one additional spot will be open just for you is silly. Same goes with parking on Aurora. It has a very minimal impact on overall parking in the area. It is not the reason that parking is difficult in the neighborhood.
There are no local retailers within 5 blocks of my residence. I don’t think my block in particular was a problem area for transit to begin with, it’s one of the last blocks before the aurora bridge and the bus merges into regular traffic well before my block.
it’s one of the last blocks before the aurora bridge and the bus merges into regular traffic well before my block.
Can you just mention a cross street? I’m not sure if I can solve that puzzle given its wording.
Why does 8 to Seattle Center disappear from real-time data every Saturday?
I think it’s the construction on Denny Way. It’s pretty annoying. They’re still running as usual, one just passed me. It doesn’t look like there’s any real time data though, I’m not sure if there’s any way to see where they are.
And without real-time data, it’s impossible to know if the bus even exists.
According to OneBusAway, the 8 has realtime arrival info right now, on a Saturday.
Wait… OneBusAway is only showing the eastbound buses. The westbound buses are missing. Sounds like a software bug.
I regularly get some wild screenshots on OneBusAway of the staggering delays on the eastbound 8… things like “Arriving in 5, 5, 6, 8 minutes” and “35 minute delay, 25 minute delay, 12 minute delay”
What’s with the bus lane gap northbound between 59th and Winoma? Kinda defeats the point.
The bus runs on linden Ave n for that segment
Does it warrant a bus lane?
I’m not sure if it is warranted but it wouldn’t be that difficult either. It wouldn’t be practical south of 65th (it is just one lane each direction under the bridge). So there is not much they can do until the bus gets close to Linden. You could add BAT lanes starting right before the bus reaches Linden (or more likely right after). It would be fairly easy. They could just take some parking along Linden/Winona all the way to Aurora. Drivers would just park on the other side (or on side streets).
It is a little tricky because the bus has to turn left. I think you would have to add a special traffic light in there for the bus so that it could turn left from the right lane (like on northbound Montlake Boulevard next to Husky Stadium) . Otherwise the bus has to move over before making the turn and that is probably where the biggest backup is. There is also a bike lane in there so you would need to add special raised platforms in there (like on 65th). If they got rid of parking on both sides they could add the BAT lane and make the bike lanes wider with more protection. It could be a lot better for both bikes and buses.
It seems like a worthy project. Not trivial but not extravagant either. We probably have dozens of projects similar to it in Seattle and many of them are higher priority (e. g. BAT lanes on Denny, 85th NE, Jackson, etc.).
The major slowdowns are on Aurora. I’ve never seen Linden Avenue congested, because the only cars that use it are going to the surrounding blocks. It’s primary slowdowns are traffic lights and stop signs, and transit lanes wouldn’t help with that. Still, I’m all for full transit lanes, so if the city wants to do it, why not. But Linden Avenue N is low in the priorities.
CONGRATULATIONS… YOU GUYS BROKE SEATTLE.
Your obsession with FORCING public transportation on others literally borders on religious extremism.
YOU don’t have a car. YOU don’t like cars. YOU are not a “car person” and YOU wish that everybody else could “just ride the bus”.
And because of your obsession with “walkable cities” and “improving infrastructure” have actually made life ten times harder for 90% of the people who actually HAVE TO drive to get to their jobs every day.
Did you ever stop to ask people in their cars where they are going every morning? Food you ever ask them what their route was and ask them how much time they would (NOT) save by attempting the futility that is traveling anywhere in the city that isn’t on a direct bus or train route??
No. You did not.
But let me tell you.
*I* live near Balard. And *I* have to work near AUBURN. Do I WANT to drive that far? No.
But very much like the majority of the ACTUAL population, I *DON’T* WORK IN TECH.
And like the rest of the population, I *CAN’T* just “choose” to work from home.
I’ve lived in this city for years and years and have NEVER found a job that payed enough to afford to live somewhere safe and decent, without having to commute – and at no time did the bus or the limited light rail make any sense whatsoever.
Examples:
From home to my old work.
Car: 35-45 minutes.
Public Transit: 1hr 58 minutes. (each way).
Home to the airport:
Car: 25-30 minutes
Public Transit: 1hr 20 minutes (each way)
Home to new job:
Car: 45-65 minutes now (thanks to additional congestion due to mythical need for busses to have their own lane on Aurora)
Public Transit: 2hrs 30 minutes. (each way) INCLUDING HAVING TO WALK BETWEEN NON EXISTENT CONNECTIONS AND PAYING $10 EACH WAY FOR UBER BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRANSIT FOR THE LAST 2 MILES AND NO SIDEWALK OR SAFE BIKE LANE IN THAT AREA. (Assuming I would even be able to ride a bike, let alone in all seasons and in darkness in the winter.)
The point is, these comment sections are always full of Transit geeks and eco warriors who have want to force their limited IDEA of a solution on the population, and yet don’t even understand the realities of life for the rest of the citizens of the world who are just trying to survive.
I’ve lived in over 30 different cities, on 4 continents, and I can tell you, there actually is a very logical reason why you CAN’T bus your way out of gridlock and you can’t lightrail your way into a green planet. Public transportation WORKS better in Europe because they’ve always invested in actually building COMPLETE transportation networks that DON’T happen to create MORE CONGESTION, while also providing MEANINGFUL TIME SAVINGS to the people in their city. Asia was like this also, and even many places in the Middle East.
My point is that instead of punishing the vast majority of the Seattle residents who HAVE NO CHOICE but to travel by car, maybe you guys need to work harder at building a REAL, USEFUL, COMPETITIVE and most importantly, THOUROGH system that does not rely on a glorified but vastly useless one-track in each direction, north south only train line that is augmented by sporadic zigzag bus lines that compete unnecessarily with bike lanes (god forbid you give bikes their own street one block over by the way, but we’ll save additional logic debates for another day).
But yes, by all means, congratulations on making life worse for the vast majority, so that you, in your self-centered world can know that a poorly functioning network can no longer hide behind the false narrative of cars ACTIVELY DRIVING in the curb lane are the “reason” your bus takes an extra two minutes.
I hope the place you go in the afterlife only has cars, and that you have a 6 hour commute when you get there. 👍
CONGRATULATIONS… YOU GUYS BROKE SEATTLE.
Your obsession with FORCING public transportation on others literally borders on religious extremism.
YOU don’t have a car. YOU don’t like cars. YOU are not a “car person” and YOU wish that everybody else could “just ride the bus”.
And because of your obsession with “walkable cities” and “improving infrastructure” have actually made life ten times harder for 90% of the people who actually HAVE TO drive to get to their jobs every day.
Did you ever stop to ask people in their cars where they are going every morning? Did you ever ask them what their route was and ask them how much time they would (NOT) save by attempting the futility of traveling anywhere in the city that isn’t on a direct bus or train route??
No. You did not.
But let me tell you…
*I* live near Balard. And *I* have to work near AUBURN. Do I WANT to drive that far? No.
But very much like the majority of the ACTUAL population, I *DON’T* WORK IN TECH.
And like the rest of the population, I *CAN’T* just “choose” to work from home.
I’ve lived in this city for years and years and have NEVER found a job that payed enough to afford to live somewhere safe/decent, without having to commute – and at no time did the bus (or the limited light rail) make any sense whatsoever.
Examples:
From home to my old work.
Car: 35-45 minutes.
Public Transit: 1hr 58 minutes. (each way).
Home to the airport:
Car: 25-30 minutes
Public Transit: 1hr 20 minutes (each way)
Home to new job:
Car: 45-65 minutes now (thanks to additional congestion due to mythical need for busses to have their own lane on Aurora)
meanwhile, Public Transit: 2hrs 30 minutes. (each way) INCLUDING HAVING TO WALK BETWEEN NON EXISTENT CONNECTIONS AND PAYING $10 EACH WAY FOR UBER BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRANSIT FOR THE LAST 2 MILES AND NO SIDEWALK OR SAFE BIKE LANE IN THAT AREA. (Assuming I would even be able to ride a bike, in all weather/seasons and in the darkness during fall and winter.)
The point is, these comment sections are always full of Transit geeks and eco warriors who want to force their limited IDEA of a solution onto the population, and yet they don’t even know/understand the realities of life for the rest of the citizens of the world who are just trying to survive.
I’ve lived in over 20 different cities, on 4 continents, and I can tell you, there actually is a very logical reason why you CAN’T simply bus your way out of gridlock, and why you can’t just lightrail your way into a green planet. Public transportation only works better in Europe (for example) because they’ve always invested in ACTUALLY building COMPLETE transportation networks — networks that DON’T happen to create MORE CONGESTION, and networks that provide MEANINGFUL TIME SAVINGS to the people in their city. Asia was like this also, along with NYC, Arguably Boston and Philadelphia, and even many places in the Middle East.
My point is, that instead of punishing the vast majority of the Seattle residents who HAVE NO CHOICE but to travel by car, maybe you guys need to work harder at building a REAL, USEFUL, COMPETITIVE and most importantly, THOUROGH system — that does not rely on a glorified (but vastly useless) one-track-in-each direction, north-to-south only train line, that is augmented by sporadic, zigzag bus lines that compete (unnecessarily) with bike lanes… (god forbid you give bikes their own street one block over by the way, but we’ll save additional logic debates for another day).
But yes, by all means, congratulations on making life worse for the vast majority, so that you, in your self-centered world, can know that a poorly functioning bus network can no longer hide behind the false narrative that having cars ACTIVELY DRIVING in the curb lane is the “reason” your bus takes an extra two minutes.
I hope the place you go in the afterlife only has cars, and that you have a 6 hour commute when you get there. 👍
These are parking lanes right now. It wouldn’t help traffic if they stayed parking lanes instead of transit lanes
> Public transportation only works better in Europe (for example) because they’ve always invested in ACTUALLY building COMPLETE transportation networks — networks that DON’T happen to create MORE CONGESTION
They do have bus lanes and their trams lanes don’t allow cars either. Not sure what argument you are proposing here.
Anyways it’s not as if the Texan cities of Houston, Dallas or say Los Angeles or Atlanta have no traffic from prioritizing cars only
> Car: 45-65 minutes now (thanks to additional congestion due to mythical need for busses to have their own lane on Aurora)… I’ve lived in over 20 different cities, on 4 continents, and I can tell you, there actually is a very logical reason why you CAN’T simply bus your way out of gridlock
At least for Aurora Avenue you kinda choose a bad example to make your argument. You are severely underestimating how many people use the bus on Aurora. The aurora bridge has around 54k cars per day. The rapidride E had 13k the route 5 + 28x had another 6k for around 19k. prepandemic the numbers were even higher. Exchanging the bus lane for a car lane + 19k more drivers would at best have the same traffic. but more likely have worse traffic than before when we take into account the bottlenecks at ramps etc…
Blaming us for your bad commute is kind of like blaming my cats for the weather. You live in Ballard and commute to Auburn. None of us made that commute worse. Your argument — if there is one — is that public transit makes driving worse. That is absurd. No one is punishing drivers by providing better public transit. They are simply giving them a reasonable alternative.
The reason your commute sucks is because it is a really long ways and a lot of drivers are going the same way. No one punished the drivers. In fact they built a brand new, very expensive tunnel to make that trip easier. It is just that there are too many drivers. It has nothing to do with buses or bus lanes.
Consider Mercer. The city spend a fortune “fixing” the Mercer Mess. What happened? It is as bad as ever. More lanes than ever for the drivers and not one lane for the buses. Yet driving sucks. Or how about the main line of I-5? Again, no bus lanes through the city and yet every day traffic sucks.
Don’t you ever drive on the freeway? They have added general purpose lanes, over the years and yet traffic is much worse. It is because there are too many people driving. You really can’t fix that problem — no city has. Cities like L. A. tried by adding lane after lane but it just doesn’t work. It is still congested. Billions spent and traffic is as bad as ever. The only thing you can do is build a good alternative which is what folks here are trying to do. They may disagree on the best way to do that but none of are stupid enough to think that it will eliminate traffic. We just think we can come up with a decent alternative than being stuck in it.
It sounds like you took a job that’s ~15-30 minutes further away from “near” Ballard than your old job. Also, traffic has been continually regressing to the norm since 2020, so your perceptions of increased traffic due to bus lanes on Aurora is probably skewed by that.
It also sounds like your career has you working in/around the Green River Valley. Presumably you live in northwest Seattle because you like the amenities there, but have you considered moving so you’re not commuting 30 miles 10 times a week? Even a move to West Seattle, which is basically Ballard with less traffic and everyone is 5-10 years older. It’d probably cut your commute time by 30-50%.