Pike Place Market’s car-free pilot was recently extended until Spring 2026. During this time the Market will create a comprehensive street management plan that will take effect before the FIFA World Cup in June. We don’t know what the final plan will be, but it may result in Pike Place becoming the third pedestrian street in Seattle. Occidental Avenue was pedestrianized in 1971, and a half block of Pike St was pedestrianized in 2023.
Pedestrian streets significantly improve the local environment of any neighborhood by creating space for people to meet, eat, and relax. Study after study has shown that pedestrianizing an area increases foot traffic and spending at local businesses, while creating a cleaner and safer environment. Seattle needs more permanent pedestrian spaces.
Pedestrian streets are not foreign to Seattle. Many neighborhoods host a weekly farmers market, often on a side street that is temporarily converted to a pedestrian space. These markets offer fresh produce, homemade goods, food truck meals, and a space for the neighborhood to gather.
Since 2020, SDOT’s Healthy Streets program has introduced pedestrian-first streets in several neighborhoods. These streets still permit local vehicle traffic, but drivers must yield to pedestrians and cyclists. Healthy Streets are usually located in residential areas and emphasize exercise over other uses. The preservation of on-street parking limits the potential of Healthy Streets as a place to congregate as the remaining right-of-way is often narrow and surrounded by parked cars.
Many of Seattle’s neighborhoods have a distinct neighborhood center. While these areas are usually only only span a few blocks, they serve as the hub for the surrounding area with shops and restaurants, transit connections, and higher density housing. Due to historical development and current zoning restrictions, these neighborhood centers are usually located along a major arterial street. Pedestrianizing a section of the major arterial is likely a non-starter as freight, transit, and the volume of traffic may not have an equivalent alternative route. Pedestrianizing a nearby side street would be easier, but does not have the same benefits of pedestrianizing the ‘main street’.
Several neighborhood centers are large enough include shops and restaurants on side streets. These areas are optimal for pedestrianizing. Former Seattle city councilmember Mosqueda proposed a Capitol Hill superblock in 2019. While this proposal has not moved forward since Mosqueda was elected to the King County Council in 2024, it still has merit. An SDOT pilot project pedestrianized Pike St between Broadway and 12th Ave on a few weekend nights in 2015. The project received positive feedback (66% in favor, 28% opposed). Another candidate area for pedestrianization is University Way (“The Ave”) in University District. The Ave has dozens of shops and restaurants just one block from the UW campus and the U District Link station. A third street that could be pedestrianized is Ballard Ave NW in Ballard. It runs parallel to Leary Way NW and the north end of Ballard Ave intersects with NW Market Street. Ballard Ave has shops and restaurants over a few blocks in the heart of Ballard. A section of Ballard Ave hosts the Ballard Farmers Markets every Sunday.
Which streets in Seattle do you think should be pedestrianized?
This is an open thread.
S Ferdinand St is an obvious candidate. Columbia City neighbors loved “The Patio” during 2020-2021, when the city permitted a tent structure and public tables and chairs covering half the pavement adjacent to the Rainier Ave S intersection. Despite its popularity, Harrell’s deputies intervened to deny a permit renewal and ultimately delay and water down the “permanent” project, which is now barely more than a couple of parklets on either side of an otherwise normal non-arterial street in a neighborhood center. A couple of adjacent property owners complained, including the owner of a building that has been abandoned for at least a decade.
Lake Washington Blvd S is also famously a pedestrian street in practice ten weekends a summer. The north mile between 43rd Ave S and Mt Baker Beach is prime for permanent pedestrianization, as there are no driveways along this section and it’s only a collector arterial with relatively little traffic. This would dramatically expand access to shaded park space and water recreation for new residents in the rapidly growing North Rainier area just over the Mt Baker hill.
I completely agree with both places you mentioned. The current Patio is a great start, but the space really shines during one of the many festivals/events that have been hosted there. It’s a nice third space for the neighborhood (that could even better).
The north mile on LWB should be a no-brainer. It is a park, after all.
That’s right. Push all that LWB traffic onto parallel narrow residential streets (25 ft wide) with busy elementary schools that kids walk to and from every school day. Just to have a place to maybe recreationally ride your bicycle on a rainy November Tuesday.
There’s plenty of room to add a wider multi-use trail between the beach and boathouse — like the City already did by the LWB segment in the Arboretum. And rip out the current paved sidewalk compromised by tree roots.
Probably not as important as areas in South Seattle, but I’d love it if Barbara Bailey Way/Denny Way in Capitol Hill were fully pedestrianised. The amount of cars that speed through the “shared street” portion can be scary at times, and it cuts off the plaza area to the north from Cal Anderson Park except for farmers market/festival days.
Another one I’m surprised we haven’t done is E Pike Street from Broadway to 12th. It’s such a busy area with tons of foot traffic every weekend but I’ve nearly gotten hit by someone when crossing the street going to Neumos.
Something I’ve thought about since the Reef closure of the street is closing off car access in both directions on that short stub into the Denny/John/Olive intersection to simplify the traffic cycle. Potentially also routing eastbound buses 8/11 onto Denny rather than the left onto John, since Denny is substantially less busy; and giving buses a right turn queue jump from Broadway northbound back onto John.
The recent local news about Pike Market features an interview of a business owner who is against the car-free idea. I don’t know why he had the delusion that people are driving to Pike Market to visit his shop. With traffic in the surrounding area on these days, driving there is a thousand times more difficult.
Previously, I thought the opposition were more about the logistic challenge like goods delivery.
One shop I go to every week said its sales dropped because people are now walking in the middle of the street and don’t notice the shop, whereas before they were forced on the sidewalk right next to the shop so they couldn’t miss it and bought something. I stood up for the pedestrianization as a great opportunity to have a European-like shopping district, and that would eventually lead to higher sales. The manager said he was waiting and seeing what the longer-term effect would be. This was in May or June soon after the street was closed in April; I don’t know what they’d say now. But it’s an example of some of the vendor opposition.
Even the people who are driving to the the market were not parking in that part of the market. They were parking in the garage or one of the dozen or so lots within a 5 minute walk, all of which are still open.
Regarding the pedestrianized streets we do have, IMO the block of Pike that’s pedestrianized between 1st and 2nd is great most of the year, but then in the summer when they put tables and chairs across the main part of it, that doesn’t work so well. That block of Pike is remarkably flat. If you’re looking for a bike route from 2nd Ave (which is pretty accessible to most of downtown) down to Pike Place or Western Ave (featuring a reasonable slope down to the waterfront), taking Pike to Pike Place is wildly better than all the other options. Heading north (and mostly ignoring one-way restrictions, which are changeable):
– Pine and Stewart are quite steep, with rough pavement below 1st.
– Virginia, Lenora, and Blanchard are very steep, with dangerously bad pavement below 1st. I use Lenora fairly often because it’s the most direct route for trips I make regularly but… I shouldn’t do it. The pavement is fixable, the grades just are what they are.
– Bell is pretty steep and has a brand-new two-way bike path. It’s fine for connecting to the waterfront via the new bike lanes there, more awkward for going to the vicinity of Pike Place (you have to go significantly out-of-direction, both by distance and altitude).
– North of there… you can get down to the Sound at the Thomas Street pedestrian bridge. Fine if you’re going to Myrtle Edwards or the Aquarium and coming from the north, not so great for other trips.
Heading south:
– Union, University, and Seneca don’t go through.
– Spring is moderately steep and a fairly busy one-way. Of course if you’re going to the vicinity of Pike Place dropping down that far to then ride back uphill is nuts.
– Madison is very steep and a busy one-way, a similarly terrible route to/from the Pike Place area for grade reasons.
– Really, if you’re coming from the south, you’ll probably want to get over to the waterfront all the way down in Pioneer Square for grade reasons.
I’m not saying this block of Pike should be a bike expressway or something, but… it’s a unique connection in the middle of downtown, so I don’t think the middle of the street should be filled with furniture. Let it be an informal, slow-moving street where people might sometimes walk down the middle or cross randomly, but where there’s a clear place to roll, like Pike Place is a lot of the time, or like Ballard Ave sometimes (often it’s jammed up with drivers circling for parking, consistent with the city’s apparent desire to turn the streets of “old Balard” into glorified parking aisles).
I was at the Ferry Terminal this morning, hoping to take a trip to Bainbridge Island on the Wenatchee, the newly renovated hybrid electric ferry. Unfortunately, as the Wenatchee approached the dock, it slammed into the sidewall of the dock, bounced back out of the slip, but successfully managed to dock on its second try. Passengers and vehicles then deboarded followed by WSF personnel who announced to the waiting crowd that the Wenatchee was being removed from service due to a mechanical issue. I guess there’s going to be a learning curve before WSF is able to expand its electric powered operations and reduce its carbon emissions profile.
I see the question as a very complex one. It’s not just to close or not to close a street to cars. It’s not a binary choice.
Closing streets for several hours a week is much different than removing pavement and installing permanent furniture and planters. With temporary closures, the street is still usable for deliveries and access at times — but it requires more continual attention and can’t have transformative redesign.
Also, what are appropriate bicycle treatments? Bicycle lanes may get in the way of a pedestrian gathering area. Bicycle parking is often not a design feature; Lime often drops bicycles and scooters on busy sidewalk corners blocking walking paths because there’s nowhere better to drop them.
And many times businesses are afraid that full pedestrianization will attract loiters with carts camping out overnight. The lack of nearby public restrooms can invite these areas to also unfortunately serve that purpose. So some sort of monitoring and cleaning management strategy has to be implemented and maintained.
Fire safety also cannot be ignored. Fire trucks aren’t easily maneuverable.
There are great ways to improve a commercial block without full pedestrianization. Maybe it’s adding parklets. Maybe it’s encouraging buildings to have retractable awnings for sidewalk seating. Maybe it includes pedestrian-scaled lighting. Maybe it’s merely adding width to the sidewalks and crosswalks. Maybe it’s closing only for certain evenings or weekends or peak seasons.
I’ve been curious if there is something like pop-up street closure kit that can be taken to a street using a mobile trailer. If there can be food trucks, why not have a trailer that can have the components needed for a quick-to-install street closure? It can store lighting, tents, traffic control tools from signs and cones to small fences on wheels that can be locked, simple street furniture, brooms and decorative garbage cans — and maybe ways to tie in to electrical (lighting) and water/ sewer (handwashing sinks next to portable toilets? Drinking fountains?) needs. Maybe call it a “street festival genie” trailer? It would be a way to introduce the concept of pedestrianization beyond a merely utilitarian strategy.
For these reasons, I think it’s not a question that is easy or appropriate for a casual observer to answer once these design and policing questions arise. And the adjacent property owners have to be given deference since they have to live with it.
There are lots of great publications with toolbox guidance and case studies out there.
Every situation is unique, but in general I think pedestrian streets should always allow emergency vehicles. If needed, deliveries to local business should also be allowed (perhaps with restricted hours). This means the design of a pedestrian street will still have a clear 12ft lane without furniture.
Trying to ride a bike through a crowded pedestrian area is quite frustrating. While I don’t think bikes should be banned from these areas, I doubt anyone would want to ride on the street when it is busy. An alternative bike route/infrastructure is needed.
Of course, the exact details of a project should be left to the professionals (which I am not). I just find it hard to justify the need for every car to be able to drive on every road (except for two) in the City.
We can look to existing cities to see how they handle emergency vehicles, deliveries, moving bulky things, and disability access. The Pike Place pedestrianization has exceptions for all these.
If I recall, in Pioneer Square, emergency vehicles can literally just drive up the curb onto the pavement if necessary. Emergency vehicle access would definitely need to be a design consideration, and it is one among many design considerations that do not preclude doing it.
On the bike question, some of these streets are in places where bike routes kinda need to go. My post above is about Pike between 1st and 2nd, which is also connected to Pike Place. I ride through Pike Place fairly often in both directions and it’s fine outside of the absolutely most jam-packed hours. It’s slow going, but you can find your way through. People walking and biking share a lot of spaces, from the MUPs that are the backbone of the bike network in many parts of town to the bridge sidewalks that we have to share. For the most part people use the common sense necessary and look out for each other.
It’s probably fine in most cases especially with Seattles street grid
There’s hundreds of other cities with much more circuitous street pattern and they aren’t falling over
One place I’ve seen discussed as a pedestrian street which I would disagree with is Pike/Pine on Capitol Hill. At least one proposal I’ve seen would pedestrianize both for several blocks East of Broadway.
I disagree with this for a few reasons:
– There’s a fire station on Pike and a police station on Pine, and this would increase response times from these stations by 1-2 minutes for incidents West of those stations.
– Pike, Pine, and Denny/John are the only streets that go all the way up the hill. Detoured cars would clog many of the side streets to get to Denny/John, and it would be a mess.
– There are many restaurants/bars in the area which need to be served by taxis and Uber eats, etc.
I could definitely see pedestrianizing 10th and 11th avenues in the area, or at least giving them the same treatment as Pike between 1st/2nd. Honestly the area could use a better trash pickup system so that there aren’t literal piles of garbage stinking up the street, but I digress…
@ Delta:
I would add that both streets carry several important bus routes too — and the entirety of Pine Street up to 15th has a bus route.
Why not make Pike/Pine ped only except for transit, bikes, and emergency vehicles, enforced with retractable bollards? Taxis and food delivery cars can use 12th or Broadway.
@ Evan:
Making a street fully pedestrianized to me means that any vehicle shouldn’t operate through it at a reasonable urban travel speed. That means no 25 mph vehicles of any kind — including buses, streetcars and faster bicycles. At 25 mph some sort of separation is needed for pedestrian safety. Then it becomes a transit mall or a bicycle street — and not a pedestrian street.
Certainly with a vehicle moving at 10 mph it’s possible to worry less about safe design. However going that slow for more than a few blocks is going to create frustration, especially for bus riders. It’s even a bit wobbly for a bicyclist to go that slow.
Below Bellevue Ave, Pike and Pine carry 5 KCM routes. Above Bellevue, KCM has 3 bus routes on Pine.
It may be worthy of its own post, but I did want to highlight The Urbanist article on growing 2 Line ridership:
https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/08/15/sound-transits-2-line-is-even-more-popular-than-we-thought/
I realize that the full 2 Line needs to open before the effects are fully known. However I can’t help but notice how Downtown Redmond has the highest boarding number of any station — yet had the lowest boarding number of any station in ST’s 2040 ridership forecasts here:
https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/
The July average weekday boardings at the station were over 2,100 while the ST forecasts were for just 1,300 in 2040. And the 2 Line is still not crossing Lake Washington! This is a completely opposite reality from the boarding data coming from many Lynnwood Link stations currently (showing fewer daily riders yet simultaneously having crowded peak trains).
Dare I say that how our region develops ridership forecasts looks way off? It appears to be more singularly focused on commute mode shares rather than on station area environments. Maybe a major rethink is needed — particularly in a post-Covid reality.
There are a few articles on Link ridership in the works.
I’m surprised the projection for Downtown Redmond was so low. It’s in an urban area and has decent bus connections. Perhaps Redmond got built up much faster than ST expected?
Yes, the Downtown Redmond estimate seems off. It was obvious in 2015 that it had all the checklist items for high ridership: recent urban-village buildings, a city government that the most pro-density/walkability in the Eastside and maybe all the suburbs (although it’s limited to urban villages), high affluent employment (mostly at Microsoft but also downtown), a walkable city hall/library/park cluster, the likelyhood of more TOD, retail, and renovating the Town Square mall (because of the pro-density policies), plans to restore an old-style Cleveland Street and the east-west rail-trail corridor (west of the Link terminus), and all those trails that go along the river or to the woods for recreational walking. All those indicate high ridership.
So how did ST’s models forecast low ridership? It might be worth investigative reporting. Sam, job for you.
It could be simply that the politicians still don’t realize the full attractiveness of walkable mixed-use areas with excellent transit. If we made our city neighborhoods more walkable and our transit more frequent, we’d have huge ridership like European cities have. All the local attempts at it have been halfhearted or limited: they don’t give the full experience because of timidity or deference to car-oriented interests. So the public benefits of these areas and public interest in them have been limited accordingly. Examples:
Most of Seattle’s urban villages drop off quickly a few blocks from the center. Roosevelt’s upzone was stunted due to animosity toward the Sisley slumlord. Mt Baker drops off to single-family after just a few blocks. California Avenue drops off one block on both sides of it. Nowhere has the highrise station-area villages that Vancouver Skytrain stations have. Bellevue limits density to an inverse-U shape from downtown to the Spring District and Crossroads. Factoria/Eastgate is a planned regional center but is still mostly car-oriented growth. Bellevue refused to upzone Surrey Downs, right next to downtown. Density should taper down gradually from the center, not have a hard edge just a quarter-mile from it. South King County’s walkability achievements and adding housing have been minimal. Most suburban bus routes still run every 30-60 minutes, and Seattle still less than a dozen full-time 10-15 minute routes. You have to make it easy for people to walk to places and take transit anytime: then you’ll see the transformative effects, even in North America. Redmond is doing more than most Pugetopolis cities to do it.
Politicians don’t gerrymandering ridership forecast like redistricting. All I know about transit forecast is that it is typically done using STOPS model administered by Federal Transit Authority paired with regional travel demand model managed by local MPO (PSRC in Seattle’s case).
I’ve heard people saying STOPS model generates very conservative ridership forecast. I wouldn’t blame FTA for wearing down the numbers. Their tool might be right statistically, but not every place is an average place.
It is really difficult to forecast transit ridership because on these days it is not just money and time that makes people choose transit. Sometimes it is the perspective from time to time. This is not something that can be calculated very well.
@HZ,
You are correct. Ridership forecasts are heavily constrained by the FTA, at least when Federal funding is being sought. And they are highly conservative by design.
The reasons for this are obvious. It’s not in anyone’s best interest to have underperforming systems, and the FTA needs to have high confidence that they are awarding grant money to the best performing systems.
Think of a municipality promising additional infrastructure and feeder buses during the grant application phase, and then not providing anything once the system is built. Verboten.
Or claiming high ridership from lots of new TOD, and then not making the zoning changes once the system is built. Verboten.
Or claiming high levels of event ridership during a year when the Mariniers (for example) are making a playoff run, only to have the Mariniers go back to being the same old Mariniers once the system is built. Also verboten.
And there are other examples.
But thanks for the informed response. Much appreciated.
The issue that I’m raising is not about being conservative, but it’s that the very lowest station in the forecast has the highest number of boardings today. One could also point out that East Main station has the second highest forecasted boardings but the lowest today — almost the exact opposite outcome.
It’s true that the full line is not yet open. Seattle riders to and from the Eastside could change the pattern once they’re added. However, despite the almost surreally high forecasts for the other full East Link stations, this station’s boardings are already 50 percent higher than 2040. Because the other stations are so much lower from the almost unrealistically high in their 2040 forecasts, the tool is not “conservative” for the line as a whole. The overall line 2040 forecasts actually appear way too optimistic!
As the video reveals, it’s also not some recent policy shift in Downtown Redmond land use. The City of Redmond made plans for this many years ago — and not more recently like Shoreline.
No, this can’t be primarily blamed on FTA “conservative” rules or its software. It instead appears to be an outcome of either some fundamentally bad logic about why people ride transit or way outdated future land use assumptions for Downtown Redmond that make it too low (while East Main is too high).
Because the Board makes decisions without looking at forecasts generally ( ST3 shows so many underperforming stations for their costs) it may not matter much. However some of us believe that projected ridership should have a bigger role in decisions — and that requires the tools to not be way off.
“As the video reveals, it’s also not some recent policy shift in Downtown Redmond land use. The City of Redmond made plans for this many years ago — and not more recently like Shoreline.”
I think land use policy might not be enough for planner to accurately forecast the area. The scale of development needs to be specified to create proper synthetic population in the model. That means planner will need to have ideas what might be developed in the area rather than just knowing the area is not zoned for single-family housing. If ST is serious enough, they should do that specifically for year of 2025 because growth doesn’t happen linearly between 2016 and 2040. It happens when new developments are built and filled up, which is what it makes Redmond and East Main different in reality but not so different if by interpolating 2016 and 2040 forecast model. However, a ridership today that is half of what’s projected for 2040 means they probably missed something significant in Downtown Redmond in their forecast model. It could be a negligence or the development information was not made available to planner back then.
In the past when PSRC still uses a trip-based model, they probably needed to dig into city’s growth plan and find out what population/job are planned in the area. The new activity-based model is generating trips in a more sophisticated way but I bet employment and population still play big part. So you are right that the model is probably too focused on commuting so it underestimates the ridership there. I don’t think Downtown Redmond’s ridership of this summer is driven by job or housing. It will probably be more clear when we have winter and spring data.
The highrises at 112th & Main aren’t there yet. There’s still the Red Lion sign. What I’m surprised at is the number of people who do get on/off at East Main. I’d expect zero off-peak, but I regularly see families of 4-6 people. Why do so many families with children get on/off there? What is there for the children to do there? If they’re going to Mercer Slough you’d think they’d get off at South Bellevue. Are a lot of families staying in the hotels and riding Link every day?
“I think land use policy might not be enough for planner to accurately forecast the area. The scale of development needs to be specified to create proper synthetic population in the model.”
Isn’t that the same thing? Developers build to the maximum allowed size, especially in an area like downtown Redmond. Practically all the buildings are 7 stories with retail on the ground floor and apartments on the other floors. The apartments are all conventional sizes, so the number of households can be predicted. There’s uncertainty how many people in each household, and how many are children, but it probably doesn’t vary much from the average. None of the other villages are building anything like the Northgate Kraken rink that takes a lot of space but doesn’t serve that many people (and is neither houses nor 9-5 offices), and foregoes most of the 20 stories that are allowed on the mall lot. So Northgate mall is about the only place building far less than its allowed capacity. Not downtown Redmond, which has average urban development.
“I’m surprised at is the number of people who do get on/off at East Main. I’d expect zero off-peak, but I regularly see families of 4-6 people. Why do so many families with children get on/off there?”
It’s the closest and easiest station to Dave and Busters. It’s actually a pretty convenient walk from East Main.
I had no idea what the chain was until a DDR enthusiast took me once. I had no idea what that place was like! It’s not my scene but I could see it being a hit for the under 25 crowd.
There’s a Target, a PCC and other things in that building too.
What’s Dave and Busters and DDR? There’s a Target and PCC near East Main station?
““I think land use policy might not be enough for planner to accurately forecast the area. The scale of development needs to be specified to create proper synthetic population in the model.”
Behold a failure of an activity based model! It relies on arbitrary assumptions about “synthetic populations” that don’t age in place and change travel needs after 20 years. Plus, many land use inputs don’t get into details like whether the apartment is a studio or three bedroom apartment or whether the apartment residents in 20 years may have very different travel habits. Even jobs at the same employer have different occupations that can have discretion about work from home or variable working hours
Plus people have mode choices. Even if they don’t have a car, they can use a scooter or Lime bike, walk, call Uber/Lyft, get dropped off or use transit. It’s not always a drive/transit binary choice.
I suspect that the assumptions about synthetic populations in Redmond were biased towards families in bigger homes rather than the single adult working from home that wants transit to reach destinations that enhance their social life away from work.
The mere fact that forecasts are done for “averages” and don’t vary by demographic-based behavioral outcomes in 20 years is an indication that forecasters are too busy developing more elaborate and abstract formulas rather than forecast the variable conditions that occur in the real world.
“What’s Dave and Busters and DDR? There’s a Target and PCC near East Main station?”
Dave and Busters = large gaming hangout chain (3 in Seattle area but only 1 near 2 Line)
DDR = Dance Dance Revolution
Target/ PCC/ Dave and Busters is at 116th and 2nd, just about 0.4 miles from East Main Station.
I’m a boomer and not a gamer. I’ll defer to others who live that life to say more.
“Target/ PCC/ Dave and Busters is at 116th and 2nd”
I thought they may be with Trader Joe’s and REI but I couldn’t remember if there was a Target there or not. But I assumed that would be a long way to walk from East Main station and people would use Wilburton station for 116th businesses, so then I was thinking of a target west of 12th or just east of it, but I couldn’t imagine a Target there because all the businesses are smaller.
“But I assumed that would be a long way to walk from East Main station and people would use Wilburton station for 116th businesses…”
Because 4th St dips slightly southward (3rd St in latitude) at 116th, the 4th and 116th intersection is about the equidistant point between East Main and Wilburton Stations on 116th. The businesses on the north like TJ’s are closer to Wilburton while the businesses on the south like Target are closer to East Main.
There is also a difference in elevation. It’s easier to walk down to East Main Station than up from it.
“I’d expect zero off-peak, but I regularly see families of 4-6 people.”
My use case of East-Main, which only happened twice was for me to go home from H-Mart without walking to Bellevue Way at Main St to catch 550 that would most likely stick in Bellevue Way traffic for 10 more minutes in the afternoon.
BTW, that entire block that houses H-Mart and OfficeMax, and previously ToyRus and PetsMart was also sold to developer for something big.
“It could be simply that the politicians still don’t realize the full attractiveness of walkable mixed-use areas with excellent transit.”
Forecasting is done by professionals, not politicians.
I don’t think those professionals have been so ingrained with their forecasting methods and formulae that they don’t step back and fully get what they’re missing.
Yes, being fully attractive as a destination is part of it. I think the other part is related to station access. I’m not convinced that Downtown Redmond would be that attractive if the station was 80 feet deep underground. Having a station and train visibly sit right there like a billboard advertisement just a level up from the street is a very powerful way to attract more riders.
Finally, having pleasant ways to walk to and from the station goes a long way. Walking between a parking lot and a high speed road like 320th or NE 8th in Bellevue is much less pleasant than walking through a liner park or along a narrow village street. The walk time and distance may be similar — but the difference in experience seems huge!
“It appears to be more singularly focused on commute mode shares rather than on station area environments.”
If commute is still the main reason that we have weekday peak hours on these days, then I think it’s ok to focus on commute.
Daily ridership only helps project the revenue. It doesn’t really tell much about what transit mode should be adopted and how frequent the service should be run. It is the peak demand that influences those decisions.
In the past 10 years, there has been a lot of developments in Downtown Redmond that ridership forecast may or may not account for.
I would only call forecast a failure if it overestimates the demand.
Denny Way between Broadway and 10th Ave E. We already do it for the Farmer’s Market twice a week. Let’s make it open to people at all times!
Denny Way is a place where it could be done because the primary streets are neighboring Pike/Pine and John. I’m against the idea of pedestrianizing Pine between 4th and 5th (to expand Westlake Park) because it’s right in the middle of the primary east-west corridor and there aren’t many alternatives that go through because of I-5 and the hills. I don’t think everything should be forced to Madison for instance. I also have reservations about Pike between Broadway and 12th for the same reason. Again, it’s in the middle of the primary east-west corridor. Put pedestrianized blocks at the end of dead-end streets or on very minor secondary streets like Denny east of Melrose.
Constructed around 1970, the Calçadão in Londrina, Brasil was one of the first pedestrianized streets (Avenida Paranà ). There is a central corridor for energy and delivery vehicles, but the entire section has been raised to sidewalk level so it’s pretty obvious you’re driving on a sidewalk.
Every week, I think maybe it’s Saturdays?, they close the street completely and have a local vendors market (kind of like a Farmer’s market, but moslty hand made items such as blankets or wooden utensils) in addition to the stores already there. This not only bring in unusual foot traffic, but also would tend to force people to avoid the middle and explore the edges.
I don’t remember seeing bikes use it. I don’t think the surface is very pleasant for more than local bike trips.
One of the problems with keeping the curbs in place is it’s less of a unified space, so it’s not like a corridor in a shopping mall where it’s easy to treat the entire space as one, as was done on the Cakçadão.
SE Clinton in Portland between 25th and 26th Ave has through bike lanes, plus restaurant tables. Maybe it’s a better example of how to add bike lanes.
The Trams! video makes a case that a lane for even occasional buses or cars makes it look too much like a street with a no-man’s-land, whereas a pair of tram tracks can integrate discreetly in a pedestrian plaza, and people simply step aside when a tram passes and move back over the track when it leaves.
I like the new Pike Street plaza, including the activities in the middle of it. The infrastructure still looks like a makeshift ex-street, but that can be addressed later. I didn’t know it was a bottleneck for bikes, and I have never seen bikes there. The rest of Pike/Pine have bike lanes now, so arguably they should go through there, but I’d like to not lose the other gains the pedestrianized block has gotten.
“The Trams! video makes a case that a lane for even occasional buses or cars makes it look too much like a street with a no-man’s-land, whereas a pair of tram tracks can integrate discreetly in a pedestrian plaza, and people simply step aside when a tram passes and move back over the track when it leaves.”
That can work for pedestrians —- but trams must move very slowly through these places. It’s probably ok for a plaza or a block — but anything longer is going to make riding on that vehicle quite slow. Ride through Downtown San Jose or Downtown Portland to get a taste of the slowness when riding on rails through more pedestrian-friendly zones.
I was mainly referring the intrinsic vehicle-lane space a bus or car requires. I think trams usually cross pedestrian plazas rather than going a significant distance on them, and plazas aren’t that long anyway. Although I have seen trams deployed along a waterfront, I think without being on a “street”. It may have been in that video, or in another video in Lisbon.
@Al S,
“…trams must move very slowly through these places.”
Not really. It is only in the US where people aren’t familiar with streetcars and view them as “big and scary” that you see such things. In most places around the world streetcars cross pedestrian malls at reasonable speed.
That said, I’ve always thought that the demise of Third Ave is purely the result of the buses. Too many buses going too fast and making too much noise while belching pollutants isn’t really conducive to just about anything on a human scale. And the use of skip stop just adds to the overall sense of chaos and dread.
The solution would be to pedestrianize the entire length of Third that is currently closed to cars, and replace (and I do mean replace) the buses with an expanded streetcar network. The streetcars could still run on Third, and one of the new lines would operate on the hub and shuttle system. Green track could be used in areas where more speed necessitates improved separation of streetcars and pedestrians.
It’s no secret that our current Third Ave busway greatly underperforms its peers in other cities. A hub and shuttle system using buses has also been proposed, and would vastly improve things, but it’s only a half solution.
A streetcar system with a pedestrian mall would be better. The use of green track in places would enhance the pedestrian experience while allowing more speed, and the use of 5 or 7 segment streetcars would allow high capacity without the use of a zillion individual vehicles.
The main problem with downtown Seattle core is the lack of apartments. Leading it to be a ghost town after 5pm
Agreed with Wesley. It’s a problem with most American cities. Used to be much worse though.
” I’ve always thought that the demise of Third Ave is purely the result of the buses. Too many buses going too fast and making too much noise while belching pollutants isn’t really conducive to just about anything on a human scale.”
Then 2nd and 4th Avenue would be demised too, along with University Way and 15th Ave NE. I’ve never thought of the buses on 3rd being a problem: I’m glad there are so many transit options available in one place. The buses are no faster than a regular downtown avenue. If the buses are too fast, why aren’t the cars on 2nd, 4th, and 5th too fast too? Re pollution, cars pollute too, and King County could expand the trolleybus network.
The sketchy people used to be on 1st and 2nd Avenues in the 70s and early 80s. When 1st Avenue was gentrified in the 80s, which displaced the SRO hotels that many of these people lived in, they were displaced and migrated to 3rd & Pine. Why? Probably because of the McDonald’s and the department stores and retail nexus and bus transfers to everywhere. They eat at the McDonald’s. The department stores, retail nexus, and bus transfers provide the biggest customer base anywhere for drug dealing and stolen-goods sales. None of this has anything to do with buses going down 3rd, except that 3rd & Pine is the biggest transfer point for both shoppers with money and everybody else. If the buses were underground, it would still be the transfer point.
“A streetcar system with a pedestrian mall would be better. The use of green track in places would enhance the pedestrian experience while allowing more speed, and the use of 5 or 7 segment streetcars would allow high capacity without the use of a zillion individual vehicles.”
A few streetcar lines wouldn’t go everywhere like the bus routes do, so you couldn’t transfer from everything to everything.
Anyway, SDOT and Metro already plan to reduce the number of buses on 3rd. That’s part of the reason why they’re converting more routes to RapidRide, because each of those can do more than one regular bus route so other parallel routes can be reduced. (And the RapidRides are disproportionately increasing ridership.) When SDOT/ST/Metro first worried about total north-south downtown transit demand eventually exceeding capacity, there was only Rapidride C/D and E. Now there’s C, D, E, and H; J is under construction; R will start construction soon (and the recent transit lanes on Rainier are pre-preparation for it); and if the Move Seattle projects had been fully funded there would have been RapidRide 40 and 62 too.
The Lazarus streetcar notion was debated in the 1980s. The 2019 DSA piece had a few good points but was deeply flawed. We have cost and right of way constraints; the streetcar dreams cannot be afforded on either margin. Could the top of the DSTT support the suggested DSA civil work, let alone a streetcar? Probably not. The 3rd Avenue bus volume can be reduced with reasonable network changes. We want the bus-Link transfers to be short. ETB are quiet; BEB are quiet; hybrid buses are more quiet than diesel.
I don’t see Third Ave as a viable pedestrian/ streetcar mall.
First, many of the most frequent routes on Third Ave are ETBs because they can easily ascend up nearby hills like First Hill and Queen Anne Hill. Those places are not going to be directly served by an expanded Link system. Those important routes are here to stay as ETB or battery rubber-tired routes for many more decades. Riders will not want to transfer twice to go a short distance either. Requiring a trip between Queen Anne and Harborview to become a double transit transfer is rather silly.
Second, there is no way a series of streetcars would run faster than buses today, especially if pedestrianized. Because streetcars have a longer stopping distance they’d have to run slower.
Third, any transit stop on Third is going to require a low curb for boarding per ADA. While some blocks could be rebuilt without curbs, they couldn’t be on a block where a transit vehicle could stop — especially a longer streetcar. Most curbs can’t be removed to create a fully level pedestrian mall.
Fourth, the blocks Downtown aren’t long enough for even a standard Link train on Third Ave. There would have to be lots more streetcars, all with drivers.
Some cities have been able to remove bus routes as light rail lines open. Downtown Seattle as a whole will continue to lose bus routes if DSTT2 is ever built. But other cities did this because the subways built were right below the street providing easier vertical access; DSTT is almost three times as deep and DSTT2 will likely be 6 times as deep.
Having multiple local buses terminating at a Third Ave streetcar seems too ridiculous to me to ever happen.
Downtown is a bit lack of housing and it definitely is lack of grocery stores in the broader area where Downtown/Pioneer Square and Belltown are.
While vibe along 3rd Ave is not pleasant, I do think many buses need to run along 3rd Ave or 2/4th Ave because that’s where most people go to work. If you replace it with a streetcar, people will need to make another transfer.
European cities has bigger dense area and people don’t just go to a small part of concentrated city center in the morning. Therefore, they don’t need to run every buses on the same specific corridor and can really spread out their transit network without running all of them on the same street in Downtown. Meanwhile we couldn’t even make different RapidRide route run on different streets.
“Too many buses going too fast and making too much noise while belching pollutants isn’t really conducive to just about anything on a human scale. And the use of skip stop just adds to the overall sense of chaos and dread.”
Yeah it certainly feels that way when walking on 3rd Ave, but one day after driving to Downtown, I couldn’t appreciate more that we have 3rd Ave in Downtown. It makes my commute faster and I almost forgot how busy other downtown streets are every day until I drove there that day.
I also think 3rd Ave has potential to have some retail scene (even without housing). Neither where I work nor where I live has drug store within walking distance. On my daily routine, the closest store I could get to without making much of detour is the Walgreens at 3rd at Pike where I transfer bus. I do think there is a potential there because of all the foot traffic mixed with tourists and transit riders, it is just running retail business there is very difficult on these days.
In the 80s there was Bruno’s pizza on 3rd between Pike and Union. Its pizza was mediocre, but we ate it because it was one of the few restaurants on 3rd Avenue. So there has been a dearth of walk-up destinations attracting a wide cross-section of people for fifty years. Two blocks north was a big magazine store, and Bergman Luggage. And McDonald’s. Those and the Bon Marche/Macy’s are the only businesses I remember going to on 3rd in that era. South of Union Street there was nothing; it was all offices. So part of the reason 3rd Avenue feels so depressed is the paucity of destinations to go to, and it has been that way ever since I first transferred buses there in 1979 as a junior high school kid.
“Too many buses going too fast and making too much noise while belching pollutants isn’t really conducive to just about anything on a human scale.”
Many Third Ave buses are ETBs and belch no fumes or have rumbling engines. Other buses are CNG. There’s a plan to phase out all diesel buses soon..
“Many Third Ave buses are ETBs and belch no fumes or have rumbling engines. Other buses are CNG”
Since only KCM routes regular run on 3rd Ave, it is safe to say besides ETBs, other buses are all diesel-electrics hybrid. KCM buses don’t run on CNG. Pierce Transit does run mostly on CNG.
If the pollution is such a concern for 3rd Ave and agencies are still not ready to electrify all fleets, KCM can start buying diesel-electric model with paralleled hybrid system again and run buses in all-electric mode on 3rd Ave. It s the old trick that keep Sound Transit Express diesel-electric bus running like a electric bus in transit tunnel through the 2010s.
“Because streetcars have a longer stopping distance they’d have to run slower.”
Please show me where you are getting this information? Sure, buses can stop faster than freight trains, but it is pretty well documented that trams/streetcar/light have very short stopping distance.
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/83vwHztRcPY
Hi Glenn.
The minimum braking standards for buses going 60 mph are 280 ft as listed in The Federal Register here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/12/15/05-24070/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-air-brake-systems#:~:text=Under%20the%20loaded%2D60%2Dmph,distance%20requirement%20of%20355%20feet.
General braking distances (note this is not an enforceable standard, which tend to be more generous) for light rail trains are mentioned here as 600 feet (while no speed is mentioned it likely is also about 55-60 mph):
https://www.nhtsa.gov/campaign/railroad-crossing#:~:text=A%20freight%20train%20may%20take,at%20rail%20crossings%20every%20day.
Surely the differences as slower speeds are less. There are other contributing factors like the vehicle weight (more riders means longer stopping distance), slope (downhill adds braking distance) and specific vehicle brake design. But it certainly looks like the needed braking distance of a light rail vehicle is longer than a bus at a similar speed. At 55-60 mph it looks about double the distance.
Trams / Streetcar / Light rail cars are typically equipped with track brake shoes as well as brakes on the wheels. They also usually have automatic sanders that dump sand on the track to increase friction during heavy braking. Neither of these are available for buses.
The safe practical limit I’ve seen listed is set by if there are standing passengers, which produces the same limit for both bus and rail (except for a couple of pie-in-the-sky people mover concepts where they would require people to be seated).
Unfortunately I’m not finding any of that right now.
SDOT installed FAB lane at northbound 4th Ave S very recently.
I noticed that the signs there actually display “Truck OK” below Bus Only Lane unlike those signs along Westlake Ave.
With regards to pedestrianized streets, it’s not just about avoiding the physical danger of being run over, it’s about quality of the experience. The moment, you let in cars, you bring in all the noise and pollution that cars bring. Even if some cars are relatively quiet, there will be other people bringing in motorcycles, souped up engines, or broken my mufflers. Short of every car on the road being an EV, there is no way to control that. And, then, of course, there’s the honking noises that so many cars make when they get locked. Pedestrianizing a street is about giving people a refuge from all that, and no matter how slow you make the cars go, you don’t get that refuge, so long as there are cars.
This phenomenon plays out on Lake Washington Blvd. From a standpoint of pure physical danger, cars only matter when you ride a bike. But, even for people that never bike, the street is just so much more pleasant *walking on the sidewalk* on the car-free days.
“With regards to pedestrianized streets, it’s not just about avoiding the physical danger of being run over, it’s about quality of the experience.”
Several smaller cities experimented with pedestrian using their main Downtown streets in the 1970’s. It was mainly an attempt to compete against regional shopping malls. Several places ended up reopening those streets back to slow-moving traffic, partly because the lack of activity made those commercial streets feel too “dead”. Examples include Evansville in Indiana, Middletown in Ohio and Poughkeepsie in New York. Even Westlake Shopping Center in Daly City, California redesigned their original pedestrian mall street into a street for local access traffic to make it feel more like a bustling village.
So while it may be a more pleasant stroll experience, it doesn’t automatically make a street better for retail stores and restaurants along it. I think it takes a certain level of foot traffic to keep a retail street from feeling empty.
The Fremont Market does an excellent job of filling up a street without cars. So, what works there could also work at Pike Place Market. Fill the street with a mixture of food trucks, places for people to sit and eat the stuff they buy from the food trucks, and popup vendors in tents selling more stuff.
It’s not like there’s a fixed number of people which would result in street vendors taking away business from the existing shops; rather, it’s the opposite – more vendors attracts more people who buy more stuff, and everybody wins.
Meanwhile, Lake Washington, of course, is not a retail street. But, even there, I could imagine a permanent configuration where half the street is converted to grass and trees on select blocks where the roadway is not needed for driveway access.
And Tacoma. Broadway was predestrianized for several years if I remember.
All those failed pedstrianizations occurred in the US. It probably doesn’t happen in cities that generally prioritize cars last and have more of a walking culture. The US went radically pro-car in the 1920s to the point that by the 1960s non-driving modes were unviable, unsafe, and in many people’s minds an obsolete relic of the past. That mindset has hindered urban vitality and and the success of repedestrianization attempts ever since. American cities have never fully recovered, American politicians still cling to that mindset to some extent even when they approve urban villages, and American nimbys have unusual clout to make pedestrianized areas fail. So only a few very strong ones can succeed until you get a critical mass of people to turn away from this 20th-century mentality. Every strategic pedestrianization in Seattle helps get closer to that critical mass. Every dumb pedestrianization that’s either objectively bad or is insufficient to overcome the remaining negative inertia will fail.
Pike Place is the most likely pedestrianization to succeed, because it’s part of a larger pedestrian space consisting of pre-WWII market buildings, the new Overlook Walk, and the renovated waterfront. All those generate massive pedestrian traffic and tourists, so that will probably spread to the street as people get used to it longer term and it stays a while. Then there will be an entire 2-dimensional pedestrian area from the waterfront through the Overlook Walk to the market and the Pike Place street itself and up to 1st Avenue.
The Pike-1st-2nd block can participate in that, although it will remain psychologically an adjunct because it’s not part of the basic rectangle. But if it lasts for a long time, people may naturally consider it a pedestrianized block and forget it wasn’t always.
Pedestrianizing Pine-4th-5th is objectively bad as I said, and I have some reservations about pedestrianizing Pike-Broadway-12th.
University Way could go either way. There has long been a movement to pedestrianize it going back to 2000 when I lived there. It’s a secondary street to 15th: most of the cars and buses are already on 15th. So the rest could be moved there. And they are moved there every Saturday when the farmers’ market takes place on the Ave, so there’s a precedent. But, I can see an argument for not pedestrianizing it. I like having a frequent Ave bus route (currently the 45), and having a bus stop right at the retail destination blocks, and riding through browsing businesses I might want to go to in the future or I’m looking for a place to have lunch now. Some of my favorite memories are walking out of a used record store, used book store, or Pagliacci’s, etc, and having a bus stop steps away from the door. Or hanging out on the Ave watching the buses go by, friends get on/off them, and me get on/off them. All that is incompatible with a pedestrianized street. It’s a judgment call whether the advantages of pedestrianizing the Ave outweigh the disadvantages or not. That’s a debate worth having, and I’m not sure of the answer.
There’s also a risk of homeless people taking over the pedestrianized space and all the benches and driving other people away. That has been happening on the Ave to some extent for a few decades, and more since the pandemic. They take up bus shelters but don’t ride the bus. Some people are turned off by them or don’t feel safe with them around, so they don’t go to the Ave; some of them go to U Village instead.
That doesn’t happen on Pike Place because there are so overwhelmingly many people using it for its intended purpose that they deter the loiterers, homeless, druggies, and stolen-goods salesmen.
It takes a critical mass of regular pedestrians to deter the miscreants, and to convince skeptics that miscreants aren’t there, so it’s a chicken-and-egg problem in areas that aren’t as blessed with as many pedestrians as Pike Place. It’s unclear how a pedestrianized Ave would turn out. We won’t know until we build it and see if they come. So is it worth taking a risk and investing in pedestianizing the Ave and hoping it will turn out well? I don’t know.
There’s also the issue of walk-up vs drive-up shoppers. Merchants on the Ave and 45th are deeply afraid that if on-street parking goes away, and if people can’t drive past and browse the shops, their clientele will go way down too, and they won’t make enough money and the stores will close. They assume only drivers are affluent enough to shop in the stores, and drivers are more responsible citizens so they’re less likely to shoplift. Stores regularly underestimate how many walk-up or transit-up customers they get, and overestimate the share of drive-up customers. So the merchants have an irrational fear of losing parkers and drive-by browsers, but at the same time, even though it’s generally the case that the number of walk-ups gained is more than the number of drive-ups lost, that’s not guaranteed for any particular location. (Drivers also want street parking, because it usually costs less than pay lots.) Especially, maybe, a place like the Ave that has an existing problem with homeless loiterers, in a city like Seattle that doesn’t have as much of a walking culture as in Europe or Asia.
I’m surprised that Ballard Ave or some blocks in the U District aren’t mentioned by anyone. These have lots of foot traffic.
The first draft of this article was mostly about the Ave. Michael changed it because he wanted a broader discussion about pedestrianizing streets in general and anywhere they might be proposed. Pike Place is the most obvious case and the most likely to succeed, so it replaced the Ave as the article’s feature. The Ave is left for the comments to debate.
Since I’ve lived, gone to college, hung out, or transferred buses on the Ave for forty-five years (though less since 2016), I’ve heard a lot over the years from movements wanting to pedestrianize it. I lived there during the 2000 renovation. I can confirm there have been persistent calls to pedestrianize it. They’ve all failed because they couldn’t get enough public/politicians’ support. Although the fact that part of it is closed every Saturday for the farmers’ market is a part-time implementation. That’s part of a demonstration of what it could be like, and it may be a relief valve for those who want further pedestrianization (at least they’ve got that every week).
Seattle has a pedestrinized space on East Union Street a half block east of Minor Avenue East. Yes Ballard Avenue NW is calm. SDOT and ST calmed streets near the Mt. Baker, Capitol Hill, and Beacon Link stations.
University Way NE was completely rebuilt in the aughts. It has been a heavy transit arterial for 120 years. It it proximate to the Link station. It should be refreshed and have more transit service, not less. It could emphasize pedestrians and transit and have fewer cars. The sidewalks could be widened. Routes 45, 65, 67, and 72 should all be on the Ave. Brooklyn Avenue NE could have a bicycle emphasis. Let’s fill the Temple hole with a short term parking garage with several stories of housing atop. There need be no parking on the Ave; just a few load zones.
I think we should pedestrianize Westlake south of Lenora. It’d simplify the street grid a lot in that area and speed up the streetcar.
Broadway in Manhattan was pedestrianized as a similar street cutting through a grid, and it actually sped up traffic because a lot of awkward five and six way intersections became four way. Like Braess’s paradox in reverse
Any opportunity for a major success like Manhattan’s should be pursued. Closing the southern part of Westlake Ave seems more acceptable than closing Pine Street between 4th and 5th. There are several adjacent north-south streets that go through, and by which cars can get to Westlake. And they’re all larger streets than Pine Street is, and aren’t blocked by I-5 a few blocks east of 5th. And you’re still assuming a pair of bus lanes rather than complete pedestrianization (which would throw off the Pike-Pine buses). If you want to put together a more detailed proposal and impact analysis of closing Westlake Ave south of Lenora and would like to write an article on it, you can reach the editors at contact at seattletransitblog.com.
I know I’m seeing this a couple days late, but I’m curious if I’m missing some obvious reason why you wouldn’t want to pedestrianize everything on Westlake south of Denny.
The C and 40 use Blanchard and Lenora to get on Westlake, so access to those streets is preserved in this scenario.
Can we get routes that serve concert venues like White River and Chateau Ste Michelle to run later in the evening? Respectfully, shows there get off at Midnight and 10pm.
Will the RTA ever expand north or east of Everett to the nearby cities and UGAs like Marysville, Arlington, Lake Stevens, Maltby UGA and Snohomish?
“Will” depends on what politicians and voters want. We can’t predict that. They haven’t wanted to in the first thirty years of ST’s existence. The cities would to ask to be included, ST would determine they’re “urban” enough to be compatible with its mission, the cities would want to know what they could expect for their ST taxes (e.g., an ST Express route or a Sounder extension, maybe Stride someday), and there would be a vote in the annexed area.
The ST distict is unbalanced, and it’s telling that you’re asking about Snohomish County. Snohomish County has the smallest percentage of its “urbanized” area in the ST district. Marysville, Arlington, Lake Stevens, Snohomish, Monroe, and Maltby are out. Snohomish County should never have allowed a regional industrial center and the county’s fastest-growing area in Marysville if it chose not to put them in the ST district. Or conversely, if it intended for them to grow as they did (which it gave no indication of at the time), it should have included them. Being in the ST district is tantamount to having a regional transit plan for those areas, and if they’re going to be “urbanized” and get growth centers, then they need to be in the ST district.
King County is in between. Sammamish, Issaquah, and Kent are in, but Covington and Maple Valley are out. The Snoqualmie Valley is defined as an agricultural/(semi)rural area so it has neither major growth nor Sound Transit.
Pierce County has the largest percent of urbanized land in the ST district. Bonney Lake, Orting, and DuPont are in. It’s widely assumed the Pierce County politicians were savvy and got a lot of exurban land into the ST District (Spanaway and Bonney Lake were small then) in order to get ST taxes to pay for growth there. And then they turn around and make it car-oriented sprawl there instead of more compact density.
If additional cities do come in, the timing may be awkward. ST3 passed on 2016 and won’t finish until the 2040s, so an ST4 isn’t likely until the late 2030s at the earliest; ST is too busy building ST3. The entire district must have a uniform tax rate because it’s a single tax district, so those cities would inherit the equivalent of the ST1+2+3 tax rate (since ST3 is using all of them as the bonds on the earlier ones are paid down), or three times what they might have voted for in each phase. So they’d be paying a high tax rate but wouldn’t get to vote on ST4 projects for them for over a decade. ST can spend on non-voter-approved projects if the subarea has money left over after building all the approved projects, but ST3 is in a fiscal shortfall, so there’s little chance of money left over or that the additional cities would generate enough to offset the shortfall and have money left over, since they’re smaller and less dense than the core cities, and and any additional money wouldn’t be available until the 2040s when the ST3 bills are all paid. So it’s hard to see what the additional cities would get out of it now.
But, cities can make bilateral arrangements to buy services from ST without joining the district. Gig Harbor uses that for an ST Express route, and the state funded a pilot to extend the 592 to Olympia. So Marysville and Arlington could buy an ST Express route if Swift Gold and CT 905 (Stanwood-Lynnwood station express) aren’t fast enough for them.
Also, the further out you go, the more tax-adverse people get. So the excluded areas are the ones most likely to object to transit taxes, which may be partly why they were excluded in the first place. Pierce Transit had to contract its service area in the 2010s in order to exclude Bonney Lake, Sumner, Orting, and Buckley, et all, because they were bringing levies down. So they’re in the ironic place of having regional transit but no local transit. ST had to establish an ST Express route from Bonney Lake to Puyallup Sounder station after it withdrew from PT, because Sounder was predicated on their taxes and ridership. Some Sumner politicians expressed regret at voting to eliminate Pierce Transit service, but that’s what they chose.
So could Sound Transit work out a deal with Community Transit to extend the Sounder to Stanwood station?
Yes, or with Snohomish County.
There’s been a long STB debate on whether Thurston County should join ST, or alternatively the state could fund ST service to Olympia through grants to Intercity Transit.
In the 2010s the state conducted studies on Sounder-like services from Bellingham to Everett (transferring to Sounder North), and Maple Valley and Black Diamond to Auburn (transferring to Sounder South). The counties/cities would have to fund it. None of them were interested in spending that much on rail so the plans went nowhere. Of course, the Bellingham-Everett one could be an extension of Sounder North. It was modeled as a separate line because there were still fundamental questions who would fund it, who would operate it, and whether ST would be involved or not.