Recent Transportation Headlines at The Urbanist:

Other Transportation:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

90 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: one step closer”

  1. I have seen lime bike/scooter parked in huge piles that are annoying to navigate on the sidewalk, I think a way to solve this parking problem is to create “pens” or designed lime parking areas in the space right before an intersection that cars can’t park in due to line of sight concerns. It seems like a very obvious solution to me that I am surprised that the city has not implemented or has it not been done where I live.

    1. There are several bike rack areas around downtown, and also several “corrals” that appear to have been spray-painted by guerilla urbanists. The spray-painted pens seem to be effective, and SDOT seems to tolerate them if they’re well-placed.

      1. I think the spray painted bike parking areas are from SDOT. I recall seeing something from them that said they will install bike racks/paint over the spray paint later this summer.

      2. That spray painting looks so temporary. They probably need to have a more structured approach to create designated shared bike/scooter parking.
        This could be something they pass on to operators. Lime might be motivated to look into the planning of designated parking in busy area because it will be easier to maintain its bikes and scooters if they are less spread out.

      3. Also the riding of scooters at high speeds on downtown sidewalks with zero lot line buildings is a huge danger. This alone has turned me against these things.

      4. When scooters first came out I was worried about intrusive use on sidewalks but there wasn’t really any. In the last few years the problem has been gradually increasing, and at least once or twice this year on Pine Street I’ve had scooters speeding down the sidewalk right next to me.

      5. The obvious solution is to give them a better (or any) place to ride. Riding in Paris yesterday, you can get just about anywhere in the the city in wide, fully dedicated bike lanes. Often they appear to just have taken a car lane or 2 to do it. Problem solved.

      6. & Cam:

        “The obvious solution is to give them a better (or any) place to ride.”

        The topic is not generally about where they can ride. The topic is about where the scooters and bicycles are parked when not being ridden.

        Or do you want Line to leave their bicycles and scooters in the middle of protected bicycle lanes? As a pedestrian it would be preferable to me if the users had to dodge other parked scooters and bicycles left blocking PBL’s rather than left blocking sidewalks and bus shelters. I don’t the bicyclists would like it though.

      7. The topic is both. Scooters left in the middle of the sidewalk hinder pedestrians and wheelchairs and sometimes block their way. Scooters weaving fast between between pedestrians can hit them.

    2. Yes the casually placement of Lime scooters and bikes is a growing problem. It’s happening more and more all over Seattle. They’re often parked across sidewalks so a pedestrian has to go off the sidewalk to get around them. Even Line is doing it now when they set out rentaks. That’s an obstacle for anyone — and for wheelchairs it’s significant.

      If Seattle wants to promote use of these vehicles it’s going to enforce things better. Certainly there needs to be designated parking pad areas for them. Corners need some sort of “keep clear” reminder too.

      It’s actually illegal to obstruct a sidewalk or bus shelter access with a bicycle in Seattle:

      “11.44.280 – Parking.
      No person shall park a bicycle upon a sidewalk or public path in such a manner as to obstruct traffic thereon; or within, against or adjacent to a bus patron shelter in a manner which restricts or eliminates the use of such a shelter by pedestrians who are waiting for public transportation; or upon a roadway except in locations designated by official traffic-control devices. (Ord. 108200, § 2(11.44.280), 1979.)“

      The company needs to be more proactive about using them responsibly. That certainly includes instructing users that parking them on sidewalks is illegal.

      With GPS monitoring, I could see a point where Lime could start attaching a surcharge to rentals for parking them on sidewalks, or informing SDOT who the last renter is so that they could pass on a violation ticket. It would be a last-ditch effort to resolve the problem but unless clear attempts are made to discourage the practice it may be the only way.

      And when Lime staff do it, the company should be fined for each bicycle or scooter they deposit that blocks a sidewalk, crosswalk or bus shelter access. If the company encourages blocking sidewalks by doing it themselves, renter think it’s ok. It’s not; it’s illegal!

      1. One of the companies wouldn’t let me end my trip, because it deemed I was parking inappropriately a few years ago. I think their gps wasn’t precise enough, because I thought it was perfectly fine. But the tech exists.

      2. I believe Lime is instructed by the city to place their vehicles in the “furniture zone” of built sidewalks, and they’re not supposed to block the standard 6-ft travel walking pathway.

        The problem is enforcement. Lime requires its users to photograph the scooters to end the rental, and recently the app has “analyzed” the photo and actually provided feedback on whether the scooter is blocking a pathway or not, but it’s easy to bypass.

    3. They pull 15,000 bikes out of Amsterdam canals annually, so there is an alternative solution. ;)

      2. I have seen several ditched in our waters. Another issue is that SDOT allows too many dockless devises. Too few, and waits are too long; too many, there is too much clutter; too many sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are blocked.

    4. The scooters and ‘gliders’ are sadly a public nuisance both when used and when littered around .

      Dock based system or BYO.

      Council could revoke their permits. They, and their daredevil users, are way out of hand. It’s terrible e-trash every where.

      Least favorite thing about Seattle at the moment.

      1. Well if they are such a nuisance why are they being utilized by so many? Lime Access their program for low income people make these scooters and bikes accessible for those who do not have the money to afford to buy an e-bike.

        There will always be people who don’t follow the rules. There are people who don’t follow the rules on transit, and people who dislike bus lanes but we don’t just get rid of transit.

        These shared scooters and bikes provide valuable last mile transportation options to many and should not just be shut down because a few don’t follow the rules.

      2. “why are they being utilized by so many?”

        Because the people who mostly benefit and the people who are mostly impacted are different people.

        “These shared scooters and bikes provide valuable last mile transportation options to many”

        Having adequate transit frequency, speed, and coverage could address much of that.

        ” There are people who don’t follow the rules on transit,”

        Sidewalks should be safe for pedestrians, period. That should be higher priority than scooters’ inconvenience or lack of enforcement. If we address the fundamental problems of pedestrian safety and adequate transit, the need for scooters will go down.

      3. The problem with a dock based system is that number of places with docks get limited by the cost of the docking infrastructure itself, as well as the Seattle Process of getting approval for each and every doc location. In practice, this means that the system would limit service to trips that begin and end in the most high demand areas, and fail to serve large swaths of the city at all.

        Maybe a compromise might be to require trips to begin and end in designated zones within downtown, but allow anywhere not causing an obstruction away from downtown.

      4. I would ban them from locations with zero-lot-line buildings… the core of Seattle and the main commercial street of urban villages.

      5. Paris doesn’t seem to have this problem, and they have this problem. They have both docked (Velib, the very large city run share) and maybe 4 or 5 private dockless shares. But they also have a massive amounts of docks and a vast array of bike racks on nearly every corner. So perhaps Seattle needs to catch up on their infrastructure rather than ban them and put more cars on the road.

        Perhaps it’s also a product culture and/or enforcement.

        As an aside, Lime seems the most popular, even though there are far more velibs available. Finding an empty dock to return your bike has been a pain.

      6. What they appear to have done, which our cities can easily emulate, is take 1 parking space per block, and drop 10 or 15 simple staple racks in it. Each rack can hold as many as 4 bikes. So as many as 60 parking spaces for the cost of 1 car space.

        Voila.

      7. While I think that adding more bicycle racks or maybe clearly designated areas to leave or retrieve Lime/ Bird scooters and bikes is good, I would add a financial incentive for users to not merely leave them on the sidewalk blocking pedestrians. I would suggest having those companies levy an extra fee to each trip when not tapping out a bike inside a designated dropoff area.

        The intent is to incentivize users to not leave them lying around blocking people by directly using money. I don’t think that a mere rack will have much effect alone.

        And the revenue collected can be partially spent to add bicycle parking drop off areas all over town.

      8. Paris puts cars and street parking last per city policy after ped/transit/bike infrastructure. Seattle is challenged with that. We can’t even get widespread transit-priority lanes on Aurora, 45th, 23rd, or 15th NE due to car interests, or close parts of Lake Washington Blvd to cars beyond a few Sundays, or be sure whether Pike Place will remain pedestrianized after next April. So expecting the city to remove “just one parking space per block” is a long shot. Seattle ain’t Paris.

      9. Speedy, low-overhead “micro-mobility” options make the public transit network more useful for more trips. I use the dockless scooters and bikes frequently, but I doubt I’d use dock-dependent systems much at all (I have tried, in the past).

        I do occasionally stand up the odd knocked-over scooter left half blocking a sidewalk, when I pass by, but that happens rather less often than I walk up to a functional, corretctly-parked scooter and use it to get somewhere.

      10. “…or close parts of Lake Washington Blvd to cars beyond a few Sundays….”

        Wrong. The closures are for entire weekends. Not just Sundays.,

      11. ” So expecting the city to remove “just one parking space per block” is a long shot. Seattle ain’t Paris.”

        You can say that again. If we don’t provide the infrastructure for folks to park bikes, we can’t really bitch about them being parked poorly.

      12. I found Paris fairly well balanced between cars, bikes and peds. People who weren’t good at driving probably shouldn’t be driving in central Paris. But that’s how any city that size should be.

        Amsterdam was bikes first, 2nd and 3rd. Cars just weren’t welcome, and I found it far easier to bike than to walk.

      13. The bike parking can be added to most spots next to stop signs (set back a bit) cars aren’t allowed to park there anyways

    5. The piles are caused by homeless and mentally disturbed individuals who push the scooters and bikes that are neatly lined up by the lime/bird workers who place them. I have witnessed this occur many many times so it is unfair to blamer riders for this uncivil behavior.

      1. “The piles are caused by homeless and mentally disturbed individuals who push the scooters and bikes that are neatly lined up by the lime/bird workers who place them.”

        What I’m witnessing are scooters and bikes neatly lined up by Lime/ Bird workers who have placed them blocking sidewalks and bus shelters — and users who have left them blocking sidewalks and bus shelters in areas where there are no obvious homeless people.

        Those scooters and bikes are somewhat heavy and their wheels lock. I don’t buy that some OCD homeless or mentally disturbed person is dragging them onto sidewalks to put all in a row.

        A few weeks ago, a neighbor left town and the housesitter had a party. Many guests arrived on Lime scooters and bikes. They just hopped off and dropped several scooters onto the sidewalk blocking my street access. I had to struggle to get them out of the way by just a few feet. The things then started beeping at me like I was the person doing something wrong! The party goers were not homeless or mentally disturbed. They were instead college aged or young adults who looked educated and self-sufficient. They just were inconsiderate and breaking the law (and probably unaware that they were breaking the law). I was in a hurry so I didn’t call the police. But I probably should have.

        Permitting these things to operate on our sidewalks is a huge privilege for these companies. Seattle doesn’t require docking stations. Seattle allows them to be slowly ridden on sidewalks (but not park on the sidewalks). The companies should be showing their gratitude by caring more about how their staff and customers treat our sidewalks and bus shelters.

        Any mode if transportation has operating rules about behavior. There is a long list of things on can’t do on a bus or train. Even pedestrians can be reprimanded for blocking access. Can you imagine the problems that we would have in transit if people just suddenly were allowed to block the door of a transit vehicle for several miles? I’m often now witnessing Lime/ Bird users and staff being irresponsible about the way they treat our sidewalks and bus shelter areas — and that’s the nuisance equivalent of blocking a bus or train door.

      2. There aren’t enough homeless or mentally disturbed individuals to account for most of the misplaced scooters. And it happens in areas where they don’t congregate.

  2. Another article on how well the ELSL is going, and yet ST STILL hasn’t corrected the problems with the July data!

    Two full days of ridership data are missing (July 30th and 31st). So ridership is underreported by about 20,000 riders for the 2-Link.

    The same two days are missing for 1-Link, but the data reported for July 26th to 29th is also clearly erroneous. Only 2300 riders in the 28th? I think not.

    So ridership for the 1-Link is underreported by about 500,000 for July. Which probably explains why ridership “supposedly” went down on 1-Link by 8%, even during the Revive I-5 ridership surge.

    It’s great that ST and Balducci are happy with the small numbers for 1-Link, but can’t we please get some accurate data so we know exactly how well both lines are doing?

    It can’t be that hard to get correct data after this long. Let’s get it done.

    1. The data anomalies appear there — and they still remain.

      How do you know what days are miscounted? It’s not apparent to me which are the specific problem dates.

      The lack of inaction is perhaps an indication of how our leaders generally don’t care about actual ridership data. Even the staff posting the info should be showing more care. This is concerning — and consistent with the disregard of ridership and productivity when planning and implementing ST3.

      1. Plot the data for the month of July 2025 by day and it is pretty obvious.

        Saturday, July 26th: 56k boardings, less than half of a normal Saturday.

        Sunday, July 27th: 29.6k boardings, less than a third of a normal Sunday.

        Monday, July 28th: 2.3k boardings, about 2% of a normal Monday. Really?

        Tuesday, July 29th: 5.4K boardings, about 4% of a normal Tuesday. Really?

        July 30th and 31st: completely missing from the dataset. Just plain gone.

        None of the above is believable. Not under normal circumstances, and certainly not during Revive I-5 when some days 1-Link was carrying over 140,000 boardings per day.

        As to who is to blame, as the Greeks are fond of saying, “A fish stinks from the head”. So I blame Dow and Balducci.

        Maybe a few less photo ops and a little more hard work will fix this problem. But they seem fixated on photo ops right now, particularly Balducci.

      2. Thanks for the tip, Lazarus! I was unaware that the pulldown tab could reveal totals by day!

        It’s clear to me now that the last dates of the month have bad data.

        Knowing that this analysis is possible actually opens the door to assess the impacts of various stadium events and the number of lost riders when service is significantly disrupted.

      3. @Al S,

        Ya, the data is there. And you can switch to table view if you want an exact number. Just don’t try to display “Average Ridership per Day” on a daily basis. Power BI tries to calculate “Average Ridership per Day per Day”, and that is clearly nonsensical.

        But I do wish they would fix the July data. That should be a record month. And it would be great to see the impact of Revive I-5.

      4. @ Lazarus:

        It looks like on high demand days, the system had several days over 150K riders.

        The daily boarding fluctuations at Stadium are interesting. It’s clear when there are no events — and when there are. On no event days, the station gets about 1K boardings. In event days in July, the station got 5-7K boardings (10-14K more riders assuming two-way trips). And that’s not even considering those using ID/ Chinatown Station.

      5. @Al S,

        “The daily boarding fluctuations at Stadium are interesting”.

        Yes, on event days the ridership is huge at Stadium, and on non-event days it is minuscule. But the station was built pretty much solely to support events, so this is exactly what you would expect.

        But let’s hand it to our fellow regional residents, they have figured out the value of Light Rail. On event days with high expected congestion, many people go straight to Light Rail as their preferred mode of travel to/from. And with LR being the only congestion free mode (other than the ferries), it is easy to understand why.

        And let’s face it, anyone who has ever tried the special event shuttles knows that they are absolutely useless. They offer no speed advantage over driving, and the user experience is horrible. I gave up on them decades ago.

        Enter Link! Fast, frequent, and congestion free. And the user experience is fantastic, even when it is packed.

        Now if we can just get the 2-Link open so people on the Eastside can have the same access to congestion free transit.

      6. High-capacity transit has multiple purposes. One is moving people all day between large villages, large institutions (college, airport, mall), and transfer hubs. Another is handling huge occasional crowds (ballgames, parades, demonstrations, festivals) where they usually occur. Parades and demonstrations usually occur downtown, while sports events occur at the stadiums, and large concerts occur at concert halls/event spaces (stadiums or Seattle Center), and large festivals occur at Seattle Center.

  3. Meanwhile, for WSF’s hybrid ferry, an electrical problem will have it out of commission for awhile,

    There is something legislators on both sides of the pond ought to agree on: The fare paid by ORCA LIFT cardholders ought to be lower on the car ferries than on the cross-sound passenger-only ferries. Eastbound, that is the case, with the ORCA LIFT fare for the Kitsap Fast Ferries being $1 (with free transfer until September 30), and the car ferries being fare-free.

    Westbound, ORCA LIFT fares will be $6 on the space-limited fast ferries as of October 1, while the current $10.25 regular (and ORCA LIFT) fare on the passenger-space-abundant car ferries will go up in October. The new fare chart does not seem to have been published yet. WSF does not accept ORCA transfer value.

    The last legislative effort for an ORCA LIFT fare was a feeble suggestion to WSF and the Washington State Transportation Commission to have an ORCA LIFT fare, with no suggestion as to rate. WSTC was uninterested, at any rate of discount. This time, the Legislature ought to specify that the ORCA LIFT fare be identical to the RRFP fare (which is half the regular fare), and give WSF and WSTC a two-year period in which to implement it.

    1. Disagree. WSDOT, unlike KCM and Kitsap transit have farebox recovery goals and adjust fares.

      Unfortunately they don’t do it by route and it already means some ferry routes are crazy subsidized – the same ones that have to “compete” with fast ferries.

      Ferries are expensive to operate.

      1. They don’t adjust the car tolls enough to clear space on the car decks.

        The Bremerton Ferry has better ridership than most. I don’t see how one can say the other ferries are subsidizing it. They are all still being subsidized by gas tax.

        But I wish you would respond to my point that the space-aplenty car ferries ought not be charging higher walk-on fares than the passenger-only ferries.

        The car ferries have lots of space to carry more people, but they price a big chunk of the population out of using them.

  4. Banning right turns onto Denny? Bold but this still will not alleviate the congestion along Blanchard St that ensnares the 40 in the afternoon. The major issue for the 40 is that it becomes stuck in gridlocked traffic between 6th Ave and Westlake. After turning left onto Westlake, it doesn’t struggle as much and is better at getting around right-turning cars.

    It’s a shame the streetcar is not getting axed. If it was eliminated (as it should be), the bus stop for the 40 could be moved to either Blanchard St or the far side of Denny so it would have a better chance of getting around traffic. And the motorists can keep their right turn. Otherwise, I fear there will be a influx of motorists on Fairview Ave instead to reach Denny. Then the 70 would have the same issues.

    1. Where are the cars on Blanchard St going? My guess is they’re headed to eastbound Denny, which means that blocking the Westlake-Denny right turn will send them elsewhere.

      1. I agree. Drivers will take a right on Lenora instead. This is one of those little fixes that will make a big difference. Traffic that moves to Lenora will only hurt the streetcar, which carries a lot fewer people.

        I also like the precedent. I could see this being done again to the north (if there are too many cars turning right). North of Denny I would ban right turns until Mercer. At Mercer the 40 and C move to the left lane anyway to avoid traffic turning right. I would alos ban right turns on Valley to clear a little more room for the C (traffic would be pushed to Mercer). Eventually we would get rid of the streetcar, move the bike lanes from Valley to where the tracks are now and then add BAT lanes for Valley. This would be a huge win for both cyclists and transit riders.

  5. Can we have a feature too auto place name and email? It’s annoying to do every time.

      1. Allowing images in comments is too problematic for spam and inappropriate content that the spam filter would normally catch.

        Most browsers have an auto-fill capability that solves the name/email situation. Otherwise we’d have to set up logins for everyone, or have some sort of aggressive cookie situation.

      3. I’ve known people that have hosted bulletin boards and such. They tell me that obscenity laws make it so any uploaded images have to be reviewed for obscenity reasons. Even though the regulars would never do such a thing, an outsider may try to do it.

        I’ve seen many posts here that simply provided a hyperlink to an image hosted on an outside web site. That seems to be a reasonable way to show images.

  6. “Freeway construction costs are increasing faster than inflation, just like transit projects (Eno Center for Transportation)”

    I was shuffling news one day during my commute and saw an opinion that echoes this. That article blames Data Center construction boom for the inflation of construction cost of infrastructure projects.

    1. Naw, blaming data center construction couldn’t really have much impact on inflation because it’s such a small percentage of total construction spending.

      The problem with high inflation is that any company committing to multiyear deal (or anything more that 6 months) is likely baking in higher inflation in bids, over time…. multiply any large number by 1.05 (5% inflation), when multiply that product my 1.05 again (5% inflation, year #2) and so on and so on.

      Also big construction companies have a tried and true method for making big profits in high inflation periods by bidding jobs with years on inflation added in, then breaking the job into smaller chunks that take less time and beating down subcontractors to eat the real inflation.

      The T-Line in Tacoma really got hit by this hustle.

      The only real solution is to just stop building most stuff, ( and have a recession) then let the economy reset with lower overall inflation rates. The economy is just going to be bad for awhile.

    2. Data center construction is tiny compared to all the houses and buildings that are built every year.

      The biggest problem with data centers is the ungodly amount of electricity they use. The last estimate I saw said the US electricity usage is set to double, and City Light will soon have a significant rate increase. There are three general uses of data centers: conventional cloud computing, AI, and cryptocurrency mining. One is paying to reopen a nuclear plant and reside next to it. I wish the governments would allow the utilities to just say no to a lot of them, especially the AI and crypto ones, or tell them to get their own power source.T hat’s better than the public having to subsidize its power and scale up the regional grid for it. Although will the data center company be liable if there’s a nuclear accident, or will the public be left holding the bag? I wonder when we’ll hear of an AI data center next to a wind farm or solar farm.

      1. Mike Orr,

        I’d guess Texas is already toying with the idea of a server farm right next solar or wind power, being they’re the biggest alternative energy State in the USA with the fewest regulations as well.

        For decades we’ve been told we would run out of water in the Western States and that’s not even close to happening. Electric power is the real problem. We aren’t prepared to live without computers or AC. With water, we could just cut out 50% of the farmers and make lawns illegal and get by with less. Electricity is a whole different matter.

      2. I’m pretty sure that data centers next to solar farms already exist, we just don’t hear about it because they’re not news anymore.

        However, there are limitations to this approach. The large amount of land required for a solar farm big enough to power a data center generates NIMBY opposition, which limits where it can go, especially with a president determined to obstruct solar and wind energy at every turn. Meanwhile, tech companies are looking to expand their data centers rapidly and don’t want to deal with years of permitting delays.

        Of course, building out a new nuclear power plant from scratch normally involves many more years of permitting delays than solar farms do. But, the Microsoft case was special, in that the nuclear power plant was already built, they just needed to start it up again after a few years of retirement. That’s a much simpler process than starting from nothing, and makes for much simpler permitting. Given that there are not exactly a whole lot of retired nuclear plants that could be brought back online to power data centers, I think this is more of a one-off thing than something that can be replicated.

      3. asdf2,

        If you don’t see shiny new nuclear power plants built to next to huge server farms, your vision of America might be flawed. Yes to move nuclear, solar and wind power! Yes to a whole lot less regulations. The days of NIMBY activists blocking everything new is coming to close… because the GOP says so. We’ll know more after the midterms I guess.

        A couple of links for you. First the worst NIMBY in the whole PNW. Why this bitter old Karen can’t give it a rest is beyond me. https://www.propublica.org/article/irene-gilbert-oregon-solar-green-energy-policy From the posted article…

        “Renewable energy advocates treat activists like Gilbert as relentless gadflies who need to be stopped for the good of the planet.

        They say Oregon’s slow process for approving energy projects, with its endless appeals, is one reason the state ranks near last in the country for green energy growth despite setting a deadline to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2040.”

        And none of this crap is helping the Democrats brand….
        https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5462604-voter-registration-shift-democrats/

      4. @tacomee

        The American southwest won’t run out of water because it’s actively managing usage, increasing supply, and raising rates. There are suburbs of Scottsdale AZ that can’t get municipal water, there are multiple desalination plants on west coast, and an aqueduct was built to ship water from the Sierra Nevadas to southern California. All of that is paid for through taxes and water rates.

        The same thing is already happening to electricity. We’re building out more infrastructure and rates are increasing to pay for it.

        https://www.kuow.org/stories/utility-rates-slated-to-steadily-rise-in-seattle-starting-in-2025

      6. AJ,

        Thanks for the link! But honestly you can’t be shocked over any NIMBY derailing growth in California. It’s been that way for decades now.

        I remember back in the early 2000s when Dan Savage with writing about an archipelago of Blue Cities that could grow and influence American politics for generations. This wasn’t a bad idea! Except for the part that Blue Cities are hotbeds for no growth NIMBYs.

        This link is from the Stranger 20 years ago. It’s amazing how completely out of touch was to the future of American politics. Blue Cities are now pretty much in failure mode and the Red States are growing. Seattle is sort of the outlier for Blue Cities because it has allowed growth, but it’s often the wrong kind of growth for the long term. Every time Seattle builds an apartment for 1 or many 2 people to live in, Utah builds a 3 bedroom house for a family… kids growing up with GOP. Seattle just gets an older demographic with more poverty, the GOP is getting younger.

        https://www.thestranger.com/news/2004/11/11/19813/the-urban-archipelago

        I’ve posted this before, but Washington State could just allow a totally new city(s) to be built on the other side of the Cascades… walkable places with green energy and transit cooked in from the start. I suspect Amazon would have loved the idea. Because cramming more people into Seattle isn’t a long term growth plan.

    1. It is not a slight change to deviate through SLU and delay riders oriented to downtown Seattle significantly. There will be failure and controversy. In a Link integration project, Route 256 will do the opposite.

      1. How much longer will it take to get to/from Downtown Seattle comoared to 311? How. Much further is the distance traveled between Evergreen point and downtown Seattle?

      2. They should have it stop in South Kirkland by the park and ride. That area is growing like crazy. with businesses, apartments, and condos.

      3. Another thing that would actually integrate link would be brining back route 237 ,(Woodinville to Bellevue)

      2. The only “BRT” projects on SR-520 were increases in STExpress service, which ST implemented.

      3. I waited a 40 minutes to catch the bus that cross 520 coming back from Seattle at around 11pm on Wednesday last week. It seems that we don’t have brt level service on 520 routes.

    2. I’ve been harping about turning the 542 into a Stride BRT line, its got the dedicated lanes now and complements the 2 line. Its really just adding a little more service and branding. Maybe even a branch of it that goes UW to Bellevue via 520, I-405 and NE 6th HOV ramps. He’ll, I’d even look at extending it to Fremont on a rebuilt Burke Gilman with trail and busway in the ROW and some takes of adjacent land and street ROW.

      1. ST hasn’t even finished S1/2/3, and we haven’t seen how they perform. ST has to finish ST3 before thinking about other capital projects, so it won’t be until the 2040s. East King would have to ask for it in ST4. We don’t know what East King boardmembers’/politicians’ total priorities will be then.

        You can certainly suggest it to ST now, but making it happen really requires convincing a politician to champion it.

      2. The Bellevue-UW segment currently has ST Express 556 peak only. It could have something different in the ST Express restructure in Fall 2026. We’re expecting the first proposal for that later this year.

        Earlier rounds of the East Link restructure consolidated the 550/554/556 into an Issaquah-Bellevue route, abandoning Bellevue-UW service. Earlier this year ST Express withdrew from that restructure. Later I saw a concept with the consolidated 554 extended to the U-District. That might possibly mean 15-minute express service to UW on top of Metro moving the 271 to north Bellevue Way and renumbering it to 270. That would give you most of what you’ve articulated in a Stride line.

        There’s no way a Bellevue-UW route would be a branch of the 542; it would have a separate number.

      3. That sounds great, but where are the service hours for extension coming from? After all, nothing is free. The most likely answer would be having the new 554 run every half hour, just like the old, without the frequency improvements. Which is not necessarily terrible considering that this is on top of the planned KCM service to Issaquah. I hope Sound Transit is able to maintain this route every half hour during periods when the proposed 270 is supposed to be hourly, in order to plug what would otherwise be a really awful service gap.

      4. “where are the service hours for extension coming from?”

        We don’t know that ST is going to propose this. The number of service hours available in a year will be different than the number now because the economy and ridership will either continue recovering or go into recession, and the driver shortage will likely be smaller.

  9. Overhead Power at a block or two of 3rd Ave between Pine and Virginia was turned off due to construction.

    Trolleybuses have been running off-wire on part of 3rd Ave for a few weeks.
    On southbound direction, all the trolleybuses makes stop to switch mode at Symphony Hall. While I was waiting for bus the other night, I’ve observed at least 5 different buses raising poles there. Most operators preferred walking out and doing it manually. The exception was one Route 7 trolleybus. The guy clearly is a pro and nailed it from his driving seat in 20 seconds.
    There had been discussion here regarding the challenge of making regular service running off-wire so service operated by trolleybus can be flexible for routing change.
    I’ve seen other places more comfortable of having their trolleybus running off-wire regularly with a little help of Pole Catching Pan, but I haven’t seen some in Seattle.
    Perhaps there were some installed in the transit tunnel decades ago.

      1. I just saw this post now, so if somebody fixed your link, it was one of the other editors.

  10. This is not transit related per se, but it could indirectly help pedestrian circulation around Westlake between Denny and Mercer. Northbound Westlake should be right turn only in the rightmost lane and straight or right turn on the next lane over. Why? The right lane is backed up with cars trying to make the right turn onto Mercer, resulting in blocking the box and the crosswalk at upstream intersections. The second left turn lane would get people into the center or left lane of Mercer for getting to NB I-5, instead having to wait in the queue of drivers turning on to Mercer’s right lane for SB I-5. There is much less traffic looking to go straight across Mercer there. And this change should not affect the bus queue jump lane.

    1. I assume you are talking about northbound Westlake right before Mercer. If so, I agree.

  11. Why are they not activating route 251? It is within the transit priority area and has a high school.

  12. If ST terminated 550 at South Bellevue (Seattle to South Bellevue), do you think we would lose or gain riders? Would this be seen as an improvement? They could ride link and transfer at South Bellevue.

    1. A whole lot of people get on the 550 near Bellevue Square (where there really should’ve been a Link station, but blame Kemper Freeman for that.) Sound Transit or Metro would need to backfill service there, so they wouldn’t really save any money – and it’d be a worse ridership experience too for all the people there going to Seattle.

      3. I think “beast link” is funny. Given the big delays, I’m sure there are people involved in the project who are now calling it that.

      4. Anyway, yes, 550 is going away once East Link goes across the lake. At that point a different bus (the 554) will backfill service in that area. Until then you need something along that corridor. Right now, most riders don’t transfer at South Bellevue. They continue riding north. Here are some numbers (average boardings heading west):

        110th Avenue NE & 10th — 241
        Bellevue TC — 587
        NE 4th & 108th Avenue — 111
        Bellevue Way & 4th — 339
        Bellevue Way & Main — 167
        South Bellevue — 277

        So you would force a lot of transfers. If you didn’t backfill you would likely lose a lot of riders. If you backfilled then you wouldn’t save any money, which means you couldn’t run the bus more often. This in turn means you would probably lose riders.

        If anything, it would probably make more sense to just run directly downtown but you would still have the same basic problem of needing to backfill service along the corridor. That would only make sense if we weren’t building East Link (across the lake).

    2. It’s a tough call. I think it’s a function of 550 frequency and Link hours of operation.

      Route 550 is at a 15 minute base now. The 2 Line runs every 10 minutes. A shortened bus route appears to allow for a 10 minute frequency with the same number of buses.

      The current 2 Line doesn’t run as late as Route 550. The 2 Line hours of operation would need to be revisited.

      I think there is some merit to rebrand the shortened, later service as a 2 Line bus bridge. But others don’t see it that way.

Comments are closed.