Upcoming Link Disruptions:
– Several sporadic periods of reduced evening service for construction of Pinehurst Station
– Downtown tunnel (Westlake to SODO) will be closed Saturday, August 23, from morning to 1pm, for East Link testing. Shuttle buses will run every 10-15 minutes.

Local Transit News:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread. Contact us if you would like to help lead the conversation on local transit issues.

75 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: light rail culture”

  1. Can someone bless me with the rules and regulations behind layovers? I see infrequent routes such as 241 or 249 spend an ungodly amount of time just sitting at South Bellevue station doing nothing. I know that layovers help with clock face scheduling but on such low frequency routes such as 249 or 241 I don’t particularly care about a bus every 30 minutes, I care not having to wait 56 minutes for the next one. I know that there are probably some union agreements involved here but would it be that hard to just give the drivers a 5-10 minutes break to go the bathroom and then get them driving again? (I am not referring to frequent routes such as 550 because I know the importance of layovers to keep schedule and avoid bunching)

    1. You have to consider how long these operators have been working, the likelihood of delays that are encountered en route, and other factors.

      Looking at pantograph which shows each block of service, a 241 starts service at Eastgate at 5:40 AM. That trip ends at 6:04 AM. At 6;12 AM it’s back to eastgate. Usually this is even tighter, like only a five minute break. At 6:50 they are due back at eastgate. That’s 70 minutes of driving (if that gap at Bellevue was only 5 minutes that’s not really a break).

      They get a half hour break before beginning at 7;24 am. This time their break at Bellevue (8:13 – 8:18) is only five minutes and then they only get 20 minutes at eastgate. (8:48 to 9:20) before their final run between 9:20 and 10;40 with a five minute recovery period at Bellevue.

      This is just one block. Other blocks look similar though.

      Each trip gets what’s called recovery time and break time. Recovery time is time padded in to the schedule to allow a late bus to start their next trip on time. This time is also the time it takes for a driver to pull their bus into and out of the designated layover spot. At eastgate this is a thing that’s done and it takes up to five minutes for this to happen eating into those 20 minute breaks.

      At Bellevue TC not so much, not suited for long layovers. That’s why the 240 doesn’t use the TC and the 550 has a different terminal.

      So there multiple considerations with scheduling. How long a bus has been in service affects breaks. How long it takes operators to pull in and out of layover zones matters too (that’s part of the “break” but not really the operator is working). Consider all the time the operators been on the road without a break. It can span two routes. In some cases this is a round trip. They need ample time to take a break and where they do their has to be a comfort station
      – what we call restrooms (eastgate and Bellevue have those).

      It may seem buses are hanging around for a bit but there’s usually a reason. Part of it is union contracts but another part is that king county does care about their staff and also care about providing reliable transit.

    2. I think a lot of it can explained by simple math. I could write up a whole post on this topic. But, the simple intuition is that, when an agency can’t quite afford enough buses to run a route every 30 minutes, clock-facing schedules require that the bus run every 60 minutes rather than every 33 minutes, so in order to prevent the route from running too often, the agency must make the buses wait an excessively long period of time in layover, making for some very inefficient scheduling.

      For a route with frequent service (e.g. must run the bus every 12 minutes because you can’t afford to run it every 10), this effect is minor, but with infrequent service, it becomes very big.

      This is yet another reason why frequency is so important.

      1. “so in order to prevent the route from running too often, the agency must make the buses wait an excessively long period of time in layover, making for some very inefficient scheduling.”

        Or they just make those buses through running with another route that operate in a similar schedule. The challenge is running a short and infrequent route. If the route is infrequent but fairly long, it still won’t be difficult to schedule whatever frequency the transit agency wants.

      3. Thru routing is sometimes a solution, but doesn’t always work. There has to be another route that starts where the first route ends, and the combined route can’t be too long – an ideal bus route is around 45 minutes in length one way, anything longer than that, delays accumulate, and service becomes unreliable.

        In addition to thru routing, it is also sometimes possible to avoid clockface scheduling leading to a really long layover by modifying the route. For example, if clock facing headways would force a bus to have 15 minute layovers rather than 15 minute layovers, they could, instead, just extend the route another mile or so and gain coverage, essentially for free. Or, they could fill the time by adding detours, squeezing more coverage into the middle of the route.

        However, both of these approaches have serious caveats. Filling time by adding route detours is very annoying to passengers, who are forced to sit through the delay on every trip. And, extending the route might not be possible due to constraints around street layout, driver restrooms or layover space. In some cases, both of these options may only be “free” on weekends, when traffic is lighter and service is less frequent, so they give the bus an excessive layover on weekends to avoid route options which require paying for an extra bus on weekdays.

    3. The lunch breaks that have to be at least 30 minutes are a fun puzzle to sort out.

      Add to this the recent spate of grocery and other stores that no longer make restrooms available to customers.

      1. “the recent spate of grocery and other stores that no longer make restrooms available to customers.”

        Doesn’t Metro have contracts with the stores at layover points that drivers go to for the bathroom? I assume there’s a standing arrangement and the stores get paid for it. So that wouldn’t be affected by “No customer restrooms” unless stores are withdrawing from driver services too.

      2. You can see this with the 208, which has a carefully engineered schedule to allow the entire route to be operated with just one bus. Normally, the bus runs every 2 hours, but there is a midday gap around 2.5 hours in order to allow the driver to get in a lunch break. Normally, you want driver lunch breaks to be a completely internal detail to Metro, which has no impact on passengers. But, you only have one bus and one driver to run a whole route, there’s no avoiding it.

        The fact that the 208 is so carefully crafted to work with one bus may also be part of the reason why Metro has no urgency to fix the excruciating detour down the residential streets of Snoqualmie Ridge, when the bus should just serve stops along Snoqualmie Parkway. The detour causes a delay, but delay does not cost Metro anything, as, the way the service hour math works out, eliminating it would just make the layover longer. When the delay only impacts passengers, not operations, and the total number of passengers isn’t that high to begin with, Metro planners have bigger fish to fry, so stuff like this ends up sticking, essentially forever.

    4. By contract, layovers must be at least 8 minutes or 12% of trip time, whichever is greater, and a shift of five hours must have a break of at least 15 minutes, which must be neither the first nor last break of the shift. As another commenter pointed out, scheduling trips for exactly the minimum layover is a recipe for disaster, given the frequency of delays and how they would cascade over the course of a day (if the bus is 5 minutes on one trip due to traffic, a driver with an 8 minute guaranteed break will leave on the next trip 5 minute late, and if the next trip is also late, the lateness compounds until there isn’t a schedule anymore).

      Longer layovers than that also often result from cycle times. To take your example of the route 249: the mid day round trip time on that route (without layovers) is ~110 minutes. With minimum layovers, you’d get 126 minutes (110 + 8 + 8). if you’re looking for hourly service, you can’t do that with two buses (126/60 > 2). You add a third bus, and the layovers get longer. You might say we could use that extra bus to reduce headways, but the longer layovers absorb unreliability (delays due to traffic etc) and allow the required 15 minute breaks (this is often called Recovery Time). It also removes complication when the scheduled running time for the route gets longer at rush hour, because the layover can absorb some of that extra time.

    5. I assume bus drivers must get at 15 minute breaks about every 2 hours and 30 minute “lunch” breaks for shifts 5+ hours, to comply with L&I? That has got to play a role in layover time.

  2. That “peace” on the open waters is in part the price-exclusivity of Washington State Ferries, which not only does not accept PugetPass and ORCA transfer value, but also does not have an ORCA LIFT fare, much less honor the Subsidized Annual Pass. It is not a service for the commoners, limiting the breadth of its political support.

    It remains a mystery why walk-on fares are so sky-high when the passenger decks are so mostly empty. WSF (and the Washington State Transportation Commission) need to lean into raising car fares faster (since the car decks tend to be much fuller), create a low-income fare matching the Regional Reduced Fare Permit fare, freeze walk-on fares for awhile to at least get closer to the crest of the Laffer Curve, and reward those choosing to leave their cars behind by honoring ORCA transfer value.

    Political support for WSF will remain limited without bold action from the Legislature to make the ferries more walk-on-price-friendly.

    1. I think the answer to the question is that political support from WSF comes mostly from people who drive their cars into the ferry, not walk ons. And, certainly not people eligible for regional reduced fare permits.

    2. Laffer Curve?!? LOL.

      I can buy that there are some additional walk-on trips for some of the ferry routes that could be induced by friendlier fare policies. But … enough that reducing fares would increase total fare receipts (i.e. what “get closer to the crest of the Laffer Curve” means)? Laffer’s hypothesis (that you could lower general taxation to increase receipts) never worked out (not in any real way) and I strongly doubt it applies here.

      A lot of people are taking car-shaped trips on the ferries for reasons much bigger and deeper than what fare policy can address. That’s even true within Seattle, with its relatively comprehensive transit network — the bold changes we need to make transit popular are more about time costs than money costs.

      1. And so … WSF is leaving revenue on the table by not charging enough to free up any car space on the ferries.

        Meanwhile, lots of money is being spent on passenger ferries as if there are too many walk-ons for the car ferries to handle. ROTFLMAO at the sheer waste.

        A different problem now emerging is the need to encourage those willing to take the longer car ferry rides to not fill the limited space on the faster passenger ferries. But WSF won’t play ball and drop walk-on fares enough to create this incentive. And so, RRFP cardholders get a cheaper ride on the the Kitsap Fast Ferries than on the competing car ferries. And their fares for other caregories are barely higher than the WSF walk-on fares. SOMEBODY IN THE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO PAY MORE ATTENTION. BECAUSE THE WSTC AND WSF SURE ARE NOT.

  3. I loved the article about Seattle’s light rail culture.

    My favorite line: “The trees. We are always in the trees. At least the silence makes sense in the trees.”

    1. >There are two types of trains on the 1 Line. Old ones, and newish ones. Old ones were designed by the German company Siemens Mobility. The new ones, introduced in 2021, are by the Japanese company Kinkisharyo. I’m on a train designed by the Japanese company, and it also has the new seats.

      Did they get this backwards in the culture article?

      1. Yeah I noticed that mistake. I could understand it from a single reporter, but certainly several pairs of eyes read the article before it was published.

        I also didn’t think that much of the article was about light rail “culture”. I was expecting mentions of things like how riders enter and exit the train with politeness or obliviousness, or where people stand on the platform or how they got to the station, or where people put bags or where and how people choose seats. Instead it seemed like generic interviews of people who happened to be on the train.

    2. I don’t know the state politics. I wonder if the vehicles could have been repurposed for a longer inter-city service to ST Cloud or Moorhead rather than merely canceled.

      I see it as a harbinger for Sounder North. To prevent that from happening, I see the need to have a backdoor plan to transfer the service and vehicles to Cascades/ WSDOT if ST decides that they want to replace it with a different transit service.

      1. Yeah its ridership change is similar to Sounder N Line. I think N Line hasn’t been targeted probably because Sounder S Line is recovering well which makes the numbers of Sounder Commuter Rail as a system look ok.

        I found this document that may or may not lead to the end of NorthStar. There is a section called “Peer Corridor Review”. Sounder was one of the service compared. Also the Peer Review shows that NorthStar is the most expensive to operate per service hour or per passenger.

        https://www.lrl.mn.gov/docs/2023/other/231881.pdf

      2. Sounder North is not some wonderful thing that should be saved. Sounder South is a typical regional rail corridor like Caltrain or Metra: it goes through the center of densest population distribution with ridesheds on both sides: downtown Kent, downtown Auburn, and between Renton and Tukwila. Sounder North has that only at the Everett endpoint, where ST Express and future Link serve the same corridor with comparable travel time. The in-between stations, Edmonds and Mulikteo, are on the shoreline, while the vast majority of residents live inland around 99 and I-5 with other transit options, and they’d have to travel miles out-of-direction to get to the Sounder stations. Sounder gives a nice water view, but that’s a job for an excursion train, not for mass transit that’s not where the bulk of the people are.

        The board has generally resisted calls to cancel Sounder North, saying voters approved it in 1996 and expect it to remain forever. But one or two boardmembers have mused about canceling it when Everett Link starts. Now that the board is in its second, bigger realignment debate, this might come up as a cost-saving measure. ST could also look at trading some Sounder North timeslots for Sounder South timeslots.

      3. I wonder if Sounder N has any opportunity for infill stations. The Seattle Transportation Plan has potential infill stations in Ballard, Interbay, and Belltown. I could see an Interbay station (next to the planned light rail station) adding a lot of value. Though that probably wouldn’t draw enough ridership to be worth the money.

        Is there any possibility of through-running? I seem to remember that the tunnel through downtown is already at capacity?

      4. Sounder North has always been a bad idea. If you want to understand why, just stop at Edmonds or Mukilteo and walk around a bit. There’s nothing there. Transit-oriented development there is not really feasible, because Sounder service is way too infrequent, so these stations never will have much ridership.

        The area around Everett Station obviously has more transit demand, but in this case the train is not any faster than the bus – slower, in fact, if you’re going to the north side of Downtown Seattle, which most people are.

        The sooner we kill off Sounder North, the better.

      5. “I wonder if Sounder N has any opportunity for infill stations. The Seattle Transportation Plan has potential infill stations in Ballard, Interbay, and Belltown. “
        Brian Bundridge used to contribute to this blog, and at that time he was a BNSF engineer, so he had some insights.
        He made the argument that a Belltown stop would be a perfect addition, and was quite feasible.
        I know people who would like to use Sounder N, if it weren’t for the backtracking they have to do from KSS.
        A Belltown stop needs to seriously be considered.

      6. “Is there any possibility of through-running? I seem to remember that the tunnel through downtown is already at capacity?”

        I think draw bridge is also a bottleneck, but I don’t know which one chocks the capacity on these days.
        Even if it is possible to through running, what time-slot do you think make sense to run that kind of train? I don’t think there are a lot of reverse commute need along N Line.

      7. @HZ

        I was thinking that if there were infill stations north of King St, Sounder S could run to Interbay/Belltown

      8. Someone that works in transit in Berlin told me that if someone was running either Sounder North or South there, they would probably be jailed for wasting taxpayer money.

        If they invest that type of money into building stations for that type of service, then the general feeling is it should be operating 18 hours a day and providing a regional service. The concept of a commuter only service is considered quaint, outdated for decades, and a huge waste.

        Most likely, they would probably use the same equipment on Sounder and Cascades trains, as both would be viewed as slow speed local trains. In fact, their equivalent of Sounder would be the Regio trains, which operate at an average speed faster than Cascades with stop spacing around that of Sounder South, or closer.

        He said it would be likely they’d add more stations with bus connections and upzones. Yes, the water blocks half + walkshed. They have that problem with lines in Europe too, so it’s really not that big a deal.

      9. They should look at 1) adding infill stations to at least Interbay and Belltown; 2) extend Sounder North to the old rail station in DT Renton via Monster Road*/Black River, and Sounder South to Interbay (layover space exists at both; the line into Renton is almost wholly grade separated), and 3) re-visit BAR station as an interchange between both lines and Link.

        Doing this would have multiple positive effects. It would add high capacity service to Renton, give Edmonds/Mukilteo/Everett much quicker service to the airport with a single transfer; provide service on both lines to the north end of downtown as well as SLU and Seattle Center/LQA, making the train a more appealing alternative to get to those areas than having to transfer at King Street; and present the possibility of a direct Sounder-Link connection at two additional locations, one north of (Interbay) and one south of (BAR) DT Seattle. This in and of itself could induce network demand far above what North Sounder currently receives and may even, in time, create the impetus for additional service. Right now it’s a orphan that only helps a relative handful of riders get anywhere.

        This region does poorly at facilitating transfer opportunities as a network, ST in particular, but the bus agencies aren’t great either. There’s no inherent reason I’m aware of that trains need to terminate at King Street so long as crew terminal facilities are provided; overlapping them adds multiple extra destinations and connections to both lines. It’s unfortunate that the line in Renton becomes street running past the downtown station to The Landing and Boeing, otherwise ST could market it as the Boeing Shuttle (Mukilteo/Paine Field – Boeing Field – Renton) and have them pay for part of it. ;-)

        (* there’s literally no reason to put a little station at Monster Road… but it would have a British-level cool name if we did) ;-)

    3. “negotiating with BNSF for track usage” sounds very different than Sounder North, which has permanent easements purchased through Sound Move. If MSP Metro was needing to re-up for time slots with BNSF, that could be very expensive and reallocate resourcing is a logical response. Sounder North’s incremental operating cost are immaterial to total ST and I believe are mostly wrapped up in the same operating contract as Sounder South.

      1. While it’s true that ST has some permanent easements, they are time restricted. Negotiating with BNSF would be required to add more trains a day.

        The news clips about Northstar indicated that being limited to peak-only service was a factor in its discontinuation. The Council was seeking more all-day, two-way service.

        I will also note that many Northstar stations are within a few blocks of US 10, which is almost a full freeway and doesn’t appear to be overly congested. In contrast, Sounder North is pretty for from I-5 and a closer SR 99 appears to move much more slowly. So a direct replacement longer-distance bus can’t be very practical to consider. However, Link + Swift expansion could be an enticing, high frequency option.

      2. “So a direct replacement longer-distance bus can’t be very practical to consider.”

        I was thinking of an express bus from Mulikteo to Lynnwood station, and from Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace station. Since it wouldn’t have Sounder’s timeslot constraints or operating costs, it could be timed with the ferries and run longer hours.

      3. With the most recent service restructures, those express buses already exist. They are run by Community Transit.

      4. “I was thinking of an express bus from Mulikteo to Lynnwood station, and from Edmonds to Mountlake Terrace station.”

        Yes those could make sense, Mike. The vastly improved ease to the ferries and the huge increase in transit runs would seem enticing.

        For Edmonds, a simple Swift Orange Line extension from Edmonds College and maybe circling back to Mountlake Terrace could pencil out, especially with financial support from WSF and ST.

        For Mulkiteo, it could be reached from a Swift Green Extension but it would seem tougher to get enough riders. An STX bus (not requiring Swift frequency) could be more direct (faster) and appealing.

        I’m sure those 250-300 daily Sounders North riders (daily ridership/2) adore their train. But who doesn’t love a long-distance service that’s scenic, roomy and doesn’t stop often? It’s why I suggested that if or when it gets questioned, WSDOT can possibly morph it into a Cascades service — and negotiate to run it further north beyond Everett. Maybe 2 morning peak trains from Stanwood or Mt Vernon rather than 4 from Everett?

      5. “With the most recent service restructures, those express buses already exist. They are run by Community Transit.”

        Oh yes, the 9xx routes.

        The Swift extensions make sense, but they’re not fast enough to replace Sounder trips. It’s already 30 minutes from downtown to Lynnwood, so there’s not much spare time to get to downtown Edmonds and Mukilteo.

      6. My biggest issue with killing off Sounder North are the sunk costs, why they spent a ton of money on a new Mukilteo station recently makes no sense to me. But if they could transfer those slots to Amtrak and have some Casacades service begin in Everett then head south to Portland or even better, apply those slots to Seattle-Vancouver service that would be ideal. I’d have at least some of them stop at Mukilteo where you do have the ferry terminal right there and could work with ferry-rail transfers which would probably work better anyway with Amtrak than Sounder.

      7. @Mike – Community Transit’s reconfigured 117 from Lynnwood Station to the Mukilteo ferry terminal is much more direct (and more frequent) than the old winding route used to be – while not quite an express, in practice the number of stops are minimal and the route is as direct as you’d drive. I recently rode it (along with the 1 Line) to visit Whidbey from Northgate Station and it worked well. The total trip was a bit over an hour, 20 min or so longer than driving. The 117 itself is about 30 min end-to-end. I had rides on Whidbey but Island Transit is free and it runs every 30-60 minutes to much of the island.

        The problem was on the return, late-ish on a Saturday evening; the bus only runs hourly later on weekend evenings and does not wait for the ferry -which is often off schedule. This isn’t a huge problem when the bus and ferry are both half-hourly, but during times when the bus is hourly they should hold for the next ferry if it’s slightly delayed. My boat was late and I missed the scheduled bus departure by 5 minutes – meaning a 55 minute wait for the next bus. At times when the bus is hourly there is basically no demand along the route to Lynnwood Station (even Alderwood Mall and the shops are closed; nobody got on or off the bus at any intermediate stop) and so there is very little downside to the bus being a little behind schedule and a big upside that ferry riders can be sure of not having a lengthy wait for their connection to the rest of the region.

        The boat-to-bus connection is really easy; just down the stairs from the ferry terminal (or vice-versa) and there it is.

      8. It’s nice they’ve made the 117 faster, but it’s still an hour and a half from Mukilteo to King Street Station, which Sounder covers in an hour.

        You can cover an awful lot of ground on local transit from Jackson Street if given an extra half hour.

      9. I think the best outcome is for
        1. The current Sounder North time slots to be transferred to Amtrak, to be replaced with Cascade runs. A fair trade would be for ST to give the slots to WSDOT for free, and in return the Rail Plus program could operate for free for those time slots. (currently, under the Rail Plus program ST has to pay the difference between an ORCA fare and the Amtrak fare, whenever someone with a monthly pass using their ORCA to rider Cascades within the ST district)
        2. Route 117 improved frequency, perhaps by upgrading to an ST Express route, to ensure existing riders get a similar quality of service: much slower ride time but much improved span of service.

    4. “There’s no inherent reason I’m aware of that trains need to terminate at King Street so long as crew terminal facilities are provided; overlapping them adds multiple extra destinations and connections to both lines.”

      I’m not fully away of the agreement specifics, but I strong expect that many of these ideas are hampered by the terms of the operational agreement with BNSF. If ST fully owned the tracks, I could definitely see your ideas studied and initiated — but they don’t.

      1. @Al, appreciate the comment and am definitely well aware of the BNSF issue – freight priority is the bane of all non-NE Corridor passenger service in this country. (Despite Federal law giving Amtrak priority, it has only been enforced once in the 50+ years the law has been in existence and unfortunately that priority does not extend from Amtrak to regional rail systems.) However, that’s a scheduling/slot issue and not a track usage one, as the only additional trackage proposed that isn’t already used by ST is the short and lightly-used – probably only by Boeing – segment between the mainline and DT Renton.

        Admittedly without knowing, compared to running additional trains I’d assume that simply extending an existing slot’s route slightly past downtown in each direction wouldn’t interfere much if at all with BNSF operations, as to do so would mean BNSF was also running a train at the same time from King Street north (or south) as the Sounder train was terminating there (otherwise the tracks would be free of traffic for Sounder to continue). To be honest, I don’t know this, but perhaps it’s worth asking? The potential upsides could be well worth it. Maybe ST has broached this idea, but in years of reading this blog and being otherwise involved, I’ve never heard it as an option.

      2. No worries, Scott. Some naive people don’t realize the cost of adding service in those tracks (not you) and I mentioned it for their benefit.

        From what I’ve seen in many BNSF situations it’s not about disrupting operations. It’s instead about greed. They know they can ask for lots of money to make changes just because they can.

        For example, the additional operational cost to offer midday service seems lower than peak service. Yet Sounder trains sit in yards near King Street all day for a primary reason — the additional cost of leasing time slots on the tracks from BNSF.

        The recent cancellation of Northstar in Minneapolis was partly because of BNSF’s greed.

      3. I doubt King Street is arbitrary: the chokepoint is the BNSF tunnel. My understanding is adding trips through the tunnel is more expensive that South Sounder trips that terminate at King Street. ST Sounder capital investments with BNSF have allowed for triple and eventually quadruple tracking between Tacoma and King Street, which is what enables commuter rail service and freight service to share the same ROW. There is no opportunity for marginal capital investments (in the tens of millions) to expand capacity on the North Sounder segment.

      4. Al, and AJ – these are both good points. BNSF has had ST over a barrel since day 1, and have been rapacious because of it. It doesn’t surprise me that Northstar ran afoul of the same practices there. It’s a damn shame that we’re forced in this country to build at huge expense new lines if we want to provide communities with reasonable rail service even if they are already on existing track, and even if there are slots available (obviously there have been abandoned lines repurposed as local rail lines in many locations – and I wish we had done more of that here – but not so much on mainlines).

        The tunnel bottleneck is a valid point, at least for trains coming from the south. North Sounder slots already use it, of course, and could still continue to/from Renton – which I still think would be the only sort of thing that could save it if it’s feasible (along with a Belltown station). The idea of Amtrak taking the slots over is an interesting one; it could work well particularly if incorporated as part of the state’s proposed additional Cascades service. I’m not sure how much trouble Amtrak has in getting slots compared to ST; the law provides for Amtrak priority, the number of daily trains the state would eventually like to run is substantial, and the state (and ST) has put a great deal of investment in the line that also benefits freight service; it would certainly be nice to see a return on that investment for both Amtrak *and* regional passenger rail service.

    1. Haha.

      “But today he asked, what reduces traffic jams, attracts more employers and boosts the local economy? We kept saying it’s light rail and better public transit, but he just kept demanding that wasn’t the answer, so we’re totally stumped.”

      I think the response the troll is looking for is:

      It’s light rail and better public transit — that is actually running rather than hyped as some visionary solution that doesn’t open.

      A summary of past dates:

      – Groundbreaking for East Link was held on April 22, 2016.

      – The February 2022 progress report was the first to mention that the baseline opening date of June 2023 would not be met. The date was pushed to August 2023.

      – The most recent progress report now says April 2026.

      In other words, ST announced a delay 5 years and 10 months after groundbreaking, and that will be 4 years and 2 months from that formal reporting of a slight delay to its current scheduled opening.

      1. Public Transit doesn’t reduce traffic. Every great city with excellence transit also has terrible traffic, because all great cities have dynamic economies so induced demand fully utilizes their road infrastructure.

      2. Many cities have improved traffic by pairing public transit with artificial limitations on vehicle access (such as congestion pricing).

      3. The improved traffic comes from the limitation on vehicle access. Tolling, higher parking costs, or simply removing parking are also effective at reducing VMT and therefore congestion.

      4. “Public Transit doesn’t reduce traffic.“

        I think it’s a stretch to say public transit has nothing to do with improving traffic but limited parking space and high parking cost do. In my opinion, they are all contributing factors to improve traffic (or put it other way, make people give up driving). If one city has traffic as bad as Seattle but worse transit, it will take more high parking cost to price people out. Having a good transit system actually lowers the bar for people to consider parking expensive. $10 parking can get people out of car in Seattle but it might take $30 or no parking at all for people to take bus in a less transit-friendly place. So how is that transit not improving traffic?

        If this theory is solid, does that mean no public transit also won’t increase traffic?

      5. Expensive parking reduces congestion by eliminating car trips. Whether those trips become transit trips or simply disappear is secondary.

  7. “three freeway-based Stride lines.” The 522 route (Stride 3?) doesn’t run on a freeway.

    1. fair enough – SR 522 isn’t a freeway, but it’s certainly a highway. If there’s a better way to concisely describe the Stride lines, I’ll update the post.

      1. I would just call them Stride lines, because S3 has little in common with S1 and S2. They won’t even use the same rolling stock: S3 will 60′ artic while S1/2 will use double deck.

        S3 is Arterial Rapid Transit (ART) and has much more in common with the Swift network or Rapid Ride A or E than the freeway oriented ST Express network. S3 should be considered within the regional ART network – Rapid Ride in KCM, Swift in CT, and Steam in PT* – while S1/2 are the logical culmination of a high preforming ST Express route.

        STX emerged out of the freeway oriented commuter bus networks run by KCM, CT, and PT, which were built upon WSDOT’s investments HOV infrastructure (lanes, ramps, etc.) and the transit agencies’ investments in P&Rs. Stride 1 & 2 explicitly build upon this infrastructure, with the capital spend all around P&Rs, freeway bus stations, and HOV investments (e.g. the new interchanges at 44th & 85th)

        ST522 was a freeway oriented commuter route that leveraged the I5 HOV lanes but had a very long “tail” on local arterials between Lake City and Bothell … once it was truncated to Link, it ceased to be a freeway oriented route and (IMO) should have been transferred to KCM, with ST providing the capital for a Rapid Ride upgrade along the corridor (AKA the ROW & station improvements occurring now).

        *Tragically, Steam isn’t yet in operation, but PT has a very logical 4 or 5 line network that simply needs funding to upgrade the relevant corridors.

      2. “S3 should be considered within the regional ART network – Rapid Ride in KCM, Swift in CT, and Steam in PT* – while S1/2 are the logical culmination of a high preforming ST Express route. ”

        What’s the difference? They’re all frequent, have some amount of lane priority, and except RapidRide have limited stops (although RapidRide has fewer stops than regular local routes). The reason S1/2 are on a freeway is that’s the nature of the Eastside; there’s no other north-south highway, and the other streets don’t even go through in places (especially between Renton and Bellevue). 522 wasn’t upgraded to a freeway, but it’s so freeway-like that people forget that, especially between Kenmore and Bothell and east of downtown Bothell. The commonality between all these services is mobility for passengers: it doesn’t matter what kind of road it’s on. We don’t need one brand for freeway and another for non-freeway: they have different names because they’re run by different agencies. You could always add “Freeway” to the names of S1 and S2, without having them be a completely different brand from ST or the others.

        Ideally Stride and Swift would merge because they’re both doing similar things.

      3. S1 & S2 will be significantly faster, more reliable, and run longer distances than S3. S1/2 are regional HCT services, like Sounder and like Link outside of Rainier Valley and BelRed.

        Consider that S3 is half the distance with double the stations. It’s a completely different service.
        S1: 18 miles, 5 stations
        S2: 20 miles, 7 stations
        S3: 9 miles, 14 stations

        That said, I agree we don’t need a different brand, just like the STX 550 or 552 have the same brand as the 595, despite being wildly different services (span of service, frequency, speed, and rolling stock).

        Looking towards future regional levies (ST4), having ST take over the Swift network and/or launching 4 line ART in Pierce would both be excellent uses of Sound Transit’s scale, budget, and operational capabilities that would allow for Snohomish & Pierce to continue to grow the RTA in their subareas without investing in high cost Link extensions. This is essentially what happened in ST1 and ST2, where ST Express routes replaced existing bus routes, and was envisioned in the Pacific Avenue BRT project that is funded in ST3 but is currently on pause.

        Nonetheless, I think it’s important here on the STB to understand the S1/S2 are freeway BRTs and are the bus version of Link (again, ignoring Rainier Valley and BelRed) or all-day Sounder, whereas S3 is simply a good Swift or Rapid Ride route but with ST branding.

      4. “S1 & S2 will be significantly faster, more reliable, and run longer distances than S3.”

        If you live in Lake Forest Park going to Bothell, you don’t have a choice between S2 or S3; only S3 goes there. The 522 is plenty fast for that distance I would think, and for going to north Seattle. So there’s no need to denigrate it for not being a freeway as if Northshore residents are worse off and people should avoid going to Northshore because you can’t go ten miles in ten minutes.

        ” I think it’s important here on the STB to understand the S1/S2 are freeway BRTs and are the bus version of Link … whereas S3 is simply a good Swift or Rapid Ride route but with ST branding.”

        Everybody knows S1/S2 are on a freeway and S3 is on an expressway. I’ve ridden the 522 and 535 and their predecessors occasionally for forty years and seen the landscape/destinations/speed.

        But you’re wrong about how they compare to Link, and this is the essence of my philosophy. Both Link, S1/S2, S3, and Swift are all limited-stop services on a street faster than a regular arterial with some amount of lane priority. They’re all doing the same job: providing faster/frequent service between nodes every 1-2 miles than a regular local bus on a regular arterial could. Parts of 522 are almost freeway-like and must have a speed limit around 40-45 mph, which isn’t slouching and gets you to Bothell reasonably quickly. So all these services are fine for getting between Bothell and north Seattle or Lynnwood and Bellevue or stops in between like Totem Lake or Kenmore within 30 minutes. Link is the same between downtown and Lynnwood. That’s pretty good for transit, and is what makes all these services similar. We could potentially call S1/S2 “Stride Freeway BRT” and S3/Swift “Stride BRT” to note the speed difference you’re concerned about without overstating the differences between them. Link is RT even though it doesn’t share the “B”, so that shows the commonality between all of them.

        RapidRide is different because it’s full-stop, and doesn’t have segments like the almost-freeway parts of 522. Those are more regular arterials, and RapidRide is really an enhanced local route — or what all core local routes should be like.

        When you put the Link/Stride/Swift lines on a map, you can get to many parts of the region on those alone. Add the RapidRide lines and you can get to many of the secondary areas. That provides a good network map for visitors and those who don’t need the other routes (or need just a few of them in one or two areas, which they can get from another map and draw them on their copy of the regional map.

        In keeping with our unifying branding concept, RapidRide could be called “Stride Local BRT”, to tie it to the others while also making clear it’s slower — but still faster and more frequent than 90% of regular local routes.

        If we then think about how to reconcile the differences between the counties, we note that King County has mostly RapidRide and three higher-level BRT lines. Snohomish County has several Swift lines but nothing comparable to RapidRide. Pierce County has neither, but its someday Stream lines are modeled after RapidRide.

        ST Express fails to be BRT because by definition it’s less frequent and doesn’t have lane improvements. A few STEX lines have achieved 15-minute frequency, but not every day or evenings, and that’s fatal for a route that aspires to be highly-usable. On the other hand, several ST Express lines are really limited-stop like Link or Stride: 512, 522, 550. They don’t have several-mile-long nonstop segments like the 545 or 577.

        The agencies have confused things by not distinguishing between limited-stop (1-2 mile spacing) vs express (longer nonstop segments where they’re not necessitated by a lake or such). But those are really two different levels of service that people use for different purposes. And all of Link, S1/S2, S3, and Swift, and some Metro “express” routes like the 9, 15, and 28 fit into that middle level.

  8. The Eastside bus realignment is upon us!

    I just noticed that my bus, the 249, will not be coming to my house anymore at the end of the month. I’ll be taking the 222 instead.

    This change was supposed to come when the 2 started going to Seattle, but that didn’t really make sense to me. Welcome news, in any event. The 222 route and schedule is much more convenient for me (even if I have to walk a couple extra blocks).

    1. I think it sort of makes sense KCM is making these changes now. The fall 2025 changes only restructures eastside local network. Any pieces that are related to cross-lake service are on hold.
      Since KCM is not touching cross-lake service this round, DART 249 stays on Bellevue Way. DART 249 was originally planned to service Medina/Clyde Hill and 270 (271’s successor) would serve Bellevue Way. Because KCM is not ready to change 271, 249 stays on Bellevue Way for now.

    2. I’m looking forward to the 226 reroute. That will make it faster and easier to get to my relative’s adult family home in Lake Hills from Seattle. Currently I take 550+Link+245 or 545+245 and walk several blocks uphill to the home. With the restructure, I’ll be able to take the 550 to South Bellevue and the 226 to within two flat blocks of the home, and the total trip will be under an hour.

      I’m not thrilled at the half-hourly service or the 30-minute travel time from South Bellevue to 164th & Main, but it’s better than transferring at Redmond Tech, riding the other half of the route from Bellevue TC, or the extra walking.

      And South Bellevue Station has a good transfer: the bus bays are close to the platform and have benches to sit on, and if you have to wait a full half hour you can spend a few minutes on the Mercer Slough trail or look at the greenery. Redmond Tech has RapidRide stations with benches but they’re further from the station. The stops at Overlake Village, 156th & NE 1st, 164th & NE 1st have no benches so you have to stand the whole time. But with the stop at 164th, I can wait at the home and leave just before the bus comes, rather than going to 156th and not being sure how long the walk will take that day.

  9. ” If you want to understand why, just stop at Edmonds or Mukilteo and walk around a bit. There’s nothing there. Transit-oriented development there is not really feasible, because…”

    Because the privileged wealthy citizens of both those cities are offended by the mere presence of the railroad.

    When the Port of Edmonds proposed a mixed development project on their Harbor Square property years ago, it was shot down because the people who “paid a million dollars for [their] condo” would have to see others living in their sight lines.

    They also complained constantly about the train horns, and wanted BNSF to put the trains in a trench along the waterfront. BNSF said “Sure, but YOU Get to Pay For It!”
    The $250 million price tag put the kibosh on that idea.
    Now they’ve got the flashy X’s, and no train horns.
    Edmonds and Mukilteo are their own worst enemy. They could make it work, but as usual…
    NIMBYs Rule!

    1. I live half mile from the section that is currently in a trench and thankfully BNSF barely horn even during the daytime. Yet I still feels the ground shaking every time freight train pass by. The personal experience of living close to that rail line makes me think it’s probably for the best that they are not developing more density adjacent to that rail line.

      I’d take that as my poor decision because railroad had been there before most residential buildings. If those who wanted a trench along the waterfront had problem with railroad, they should do their research better before buying properties there.

    2. “Yet I still feels the ground shaking every time freight train pass by.”

      This.

      Lots of people don’t think about vibration — but it’s a very real impact. Lots depends on the locomotive weight and the way the track ballast is designed. Freight locomotives are often attached and can rumble much hardercthsnbpassengerctewins. Of course, light rail doesn’t rumble like diesel trains.

      A question: Do battery trains create worse vibration?

      1. Big trucks on major highways cause vibration and noise. That’s what I get for buying a house next to one. Sucks to be me.

      2. This should be a non-issue. In Issaquah I lived immediately on top of I90. The condo was 2005 construction and modern windows blocked the noise great. It was loud out on my balcony, so I didn’t ever leave my windows open, but I would step outside and enjoy a cup of coffee & a sunrise just fine.

        I am writing this from Perrysburg Ohio, which has a delightful, historical, walkable downtown that is bisected by a active freight train*. The train is LOUD, blares the horn as it goes through because all the crossing are at grade. It’s still some of the most desirable real estate in the metro. The farmer market on Thursdays is Packed, even with the train rumbling through in the middle of the market, so clearly people are willing to be outside near the train if the neighborhood is desirable.

      3. “A question: Do battery trains create worse vibration?”

        I think it has a lot to do with the load it is carrying. I’ve noticed that not very train creates same level of vibration. Some shake my bathroom doors while some create little more than white noise. I bet train carts carrying heavier material create more noise/vibration.

    3. No, Jim – the “privileged wealthy citizens” are anti-development because they don’t want their views blocked, or something-something about density (parking, gasp!) ; it’s textbook NIMBY and has nothing to do with the train. You could close the train line and the objections to new development would be the same.

      But yes, the Edmonds & Mukilteo political leaders wanted robust TOD around the stations, they could do it today. Shoot, that waterfront is so desirable you could build density there without any transit anchor. Look at Des Moise, a city that is anti-TOD yet still has several blocks of density anchored by waterfront, or Everett which is redeveloping it’s waterfront despite it being essentially cut off from the rest of the city via the same loud freight lines

      Mukilteo does struggle with there isn’t much “there” there, but Edmonds already has a great dense, walkable neighborhood at the waterfront. It’s anchored around 5th & Main, which is still within the 5 minute walkshed of the station. Edmonds (the city & the port) simply needs allow new density in the 2~3 blocks closest to the waterfront (which means overcoming the nimby objections Jim highlights)

      1. Hmmm, I think we’re agreeing, and I’m merely making the point that Sounder North could function much better with some simple changes – a Belltown station, and creating more “there” there at Mukilteo and Edmonds.

  10. I have a flight out of Seatac this morning. Just got an alert that Link is closed north of Capitol Hill. I guess I’ll have to have a family member drive me to the airport instead of drive me to Shoreline South Station.

    Revive I5 closes I5 north at the Ship Canal bridge tomorrow. Makes me wonder what would happen tomorrow if both Link and I-5 were closed in the same stretch…

    1. It’s hard when Link has unexpected closures and you’re going from north Seattle/Shoreline to the airport.

      The alert says “ventilation safety fault”. That sounds like the same thing that happened at Beacon Hill. It may be something different, but at least ST is being more specific about the reason for a closure. That may be because of public frustration over the Beacon Hill issue having a vague description until the Seattle Times reporters dug up the actual reason. And the fact that these two closures are because regulations require closing a segment over safety issues, as opposed to regular breakdowns or single-tracking that are because something is blocking the track or damaged infrastructure or is ST’s discretionary choice to close it. Hopefully ST will make a greater effort to distinguish these kinds of closures in public communication.

      The alerts say north Seattle service was restored by 8:27am.

  11. Yes, routes 226 and 241 have been through routed since fall 2011; they were selected for the Orion BEB trial. In the August 2025 service change, Route 241 will be deleted.

    The Stranger reporters erred; the new subfleet is Siemens; they flipped them.

    I will make suggestions to ST regarding 2026 bus service. The I-90 routes should be quite different. Three frequent lines: Route 554 between Issaquah and Mercer Island via the Eastgate freeway station; Route 552 between the Eastgate local bays and Mercer Island; and, Route 556 between the Highlands and the U District via Issaquah, Eastgate, Richard’s Road, and BTC. Routes 554 and 552 would be through routed and short and take no layover on MI. The Metro ELC network left some holes. Route 240 would shift to the arterial pathway of Route 550. Route 270 has too little service. The suggested Route 556 pathway was used in about 2012 for Route 555. The ELC Route 554 would provide a slow Link connection to Issaquah.

Comments are closed.