Biking the new Seattle waterfront and East Marginal Way with Greg Spotts, former SDOT director. (Best Side Cycling)
Biking the Vancouver Seawall Trail. (City Beautiful) It goes 28 km (17 miles) around Stanley Park, around False Creek, and along the Kitsilano shore to several beaches.
This is an open thread.
Eastside Transit posted a video of FWLE testing. It’s not super exciting, but it is the first video I have seen of a Link LRV in operation on the line:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrS1nONOKo
Video is at KDM Station. Hopefully there are more to come. Eastside Transit does a good job.
As an aside, I like how the KDM and Star Lake parking garages both have a small amount of solar panels on their upper levels. In addition to providing a small amount of power, these panels will also provide some shade and a little rain protection for those people unlucky enough to have to park on the upper level of a full garage.
I wish there was more of this throughout the region.
Last night I ran into a bit about Skagit Transit’s effort to provide bus service on Guemes Island:
https://www.skagittransit.org/guemes-island-demand-response-service/
Anyone here try using it? If so, how well did it work?
Are the number of boardings at Shoreline South, Shoreline North, and Mountlake Terrace objectively bad, or just relatively lower than surrounding stations? What would be the threshold for bad? Are boardings proportional to the amount of bus access, housing, and retail/service destinations in the station areas relative to other stations?
The answers to these would help clarify the issues of whether Lynnwood Link or those stations are worthwhile, and if Pinehurst station turns out to have the same number, whether it’s worthwhile. And whether, relative to the amount of bus/housing/retail access per capita at each station, people are more reluctant to take Link at those three stations or not.
Yeah they do seem to be very low. So why not terminate the 2 line at Northgate? Is it worth sending empty trains up to Lynwood just for the sake of it?
Seems extra capacity is only needed between Northgate and CID.
I believe that there was some early discussion about just running 2 Line to Lynnwood at peak hours only, and terminating at Northgate at other times of day.
One concern is about how easy it is to reverse trains in either operational pattern. If trains get off schedule it can disrupt the whole system. Could a train easily queeze in between two trains at Northgate after keying over?
At the end of the day, I think the FTA promise and the Board actions are to take i2 Line all the way to Lynnwood all the time. If the riders don’t come they could ratchet it back later.
A final note that the increased frequency and direct Eastside service can both attract some additional Lynnwood Link riders. I would expect the Lynnwood Link station boardings to grow a bit more for these reasons.
“I believe that there was some early discussion about just running 2 Line to Lynnwood at peak hours only”
That was the original 2 Line operational plan. In the mid 2010s ST extended all trains to Lynnwood thinking it would need the capacity.
The trains aren’t empty; they’re just relatively low. Halving the trains would double the wait time of the people who are on the trains or will start riding them in the future. I’d rather err on overservice after the decades of severe underservice the tri-county area has suffered.
And truncating the line comes back to the threshold issue. What’s the minimum number of riders or train fullness to justifies an extension?
There is a similar trade-off when it comes to service. How much do you save by truncating the trains in Northgate? How many riders are delayed? How many of those riders figure the train isn’t worth it and drive?
It is a judgement call, but I don’t think it is worth turning back. The Lynnwood Link stops are heavily dependent on bus transfers. Frequency is especially important with transfers. Running every five minutes midday is much better than running every ten minutes if you just got off a bus. The savings seem pretty small compares to the loss of functionality.
Here’s another perspective. The S3 bus will go to 148th rather than the 522’s current Roosevelt routing. Assume the 2 line is truncated at Northgate. Some people, myself included, would be annoyed that ST is spending a lot of money sending Northshore riders to a Link station that only gets half service when they could have maintained the current routing to a full service Link station.
> Yeah they do seem to be very low. So why not terminate the 2 line at Northgate? Is it worth sending empty trains up to Lynwood just for the sake of it?
They could technically turn back the line 2 at northgate and the run the line 1 more frequently.
They aren’t sending trains to Lynwood “just for the sake of it.” ST staff recommended Mariner as the turnback point because they project there will be ridership that requires both lines to handle peak demand. I doubt demand in year 1 will impact our long term projection.
To Larry’s point, every station north of Northgate is a key bus-rail transfer point, where the higher frequency of interlining is most impactful.
“The S3 bus will go to 148th rather than the 522’s current Roosevelt routing. Assume the 2 line is truncated at Northgate.”
Good point. It can be hard to keep track of all the impacts to all trip pairs. The 2 Line was extended to Lynnwood full-time years before there was a concrete proposal for 522 BRT.
“ST staff recommended Mariner as the turnback point because they project there will be ridership that requires both lines to handle peak demand”
All this revolves around whether ST is overestimating ridership north of Northgate, and whether the pandemic-era changes have depressed long-term ridership much more than ST estimates.
Also, you said peak demand. So the 2 Line could go to Mariner peak hours but turn back at Lynnwood or Ash Way off-peak. I’m not saying it should: I wouldn’t want to be the one who takes away somebody’s 4-5 minute frequency. But the choice of Mariner has always seemed arbitrary and further north than I’d expect.
“I doubt demand in year 1 will impact our long term projection.”
That’s another point. ST’s ridership estimates are based on the target year, which is some twenty years after the line is completed. So for Lynnwood Link that’s the 2040s, and for Everett Link that’s the 2060s.
@Larry — Good point. I forgot to mention that. It just doesn’t make sense to send a bus to 148th if the train runs less often. As it is, the main reason the 522 is waiting for East Link is because it is waiting for the train to run twice as often. Other than Link, going to Roosevelt offers more one and two seat destinations. To help make up for that they want to wait until the train is frequent (all day long).
In terms of estimates, it is quite likely that ST overestimated peak-hour ridership. This was bound to happen before the pandemic but the pandemic accelerated the work-from-home phenomenon. There are other factors but that is the biggest reason longer distance peak ridership is done much worse than other types of transit.
But that doesn’t mean midday service should be penalized. There are still people taking Link from north of Northgate in the middle of the day. If anything they should just run the trains every ten minutes all day long. Of course that would make life worse for those commuting across the lake or from the south end. I would just stick with the plan.
Seems extra capacity is only needed between Northgate and CID.
Extra capacity is only needed during peak. Transit agencies don’t base their system on capacity — or at least they shouldn’t. They balance cost and value. Running trains and buses more often is better for riders. Whether it is worth the cost or not is the question.
They could technically turn back the line 2 at northgate and the run the line 1 more frequently.
The 1 and 2 line have to be in sync. By my calculations you would be able to run the trains a little over 9 minutes instead of 10 minutes (at best). I don’t see the point.
The pocket track at northgate is better used as storage for gap trains to provide operational flexibility.
The pocket track at Northgate is not something that can be used for regular turnbacks. It doesn’t have a platform.
You really want at least one more platform and track, as per TriMet’s Beaverton transit center. This allowed them to turn red line trains while continuing blue line though the station.
What would be the threshold for bad?
There is no obvious answer. When it comes to capital spending, you can look at several things. One is ridership per dollar spent. This is a very crude approach that really doesn’t tell you much. Imagine you replace a green bus with a blue bus. The paint doesn’t cost much. So now the cost per rider (on the new blue bus) is very good. What a great investment!
For that reason one of the things they used to look at was rider time saved per dollar spent. For example all of the Lynnwood Station riders had alternatives before Lynnwood Link. Imagine those 4,000 riders a day saved an average of 5 minutes (each). You have saved 20,000 minutes. Compare that to the cost of the project and you have your number.
It is better to look at the overall network though. Consider U-Link. One of the big things that happened with U-Link is that they replaced a *lot* of buses. They then ran these buses more often (in other places). Thus it is quite possible that a lot of the riders on Link saved a minimal amount of time. But the overall network was much better.
It isn’t just savings, either. Quite often a train compliments the network extremely well. Vancouver is a classic example of this. They have one of the best transit grids in the world. At its forefront is SkyTrain. SkyTrain itself carries quite a few riders. But the buses carry more. It is the overall network (not the subway system in isolation) that is so impressive. The overall transit system is one of the best in North America even though most of the riders take buses. But it is the outstanding rail system that enables the buses to shine.
But building those trains wasn’t free. Which brings us back to Lynnwood Link. Lynnwood Link cost a little over $3.1 billion. The Pinehurst Station cost less than $250 million. So the rest of Lynnwood Link cost 12 times as much. A year after Lynnwood Link opens the four station are averaging somewhere around 8,000 riders a day. Let’s round up to 9,000. One twelfth of 9,000 is 750. So if — a year after opening — Pinehurst Station gets 750 riders per day it can be considered a success compared to the rest of Lynnwood Link (by that metric).
It is easy to see the impact cost has on such metrics. The station was originally supposed to cost between $79 and $89 million. At $100 million (significantly more than the original estimate) you would only need 300 riders a day to match the success of the rest of the line. If there is a complaint to be made about the station it is how costs ballooned for no apparent reason. Would it have been much cheaper to build it with the rest of the line? Would it have been much cheaper to build it straddling 130th? Are the second set of escalators (to the north) even needed? These are big questions that have been ignored as the huge overruns are relatively minor (in total dollars) to other projects.
But again, ridership per dollar spent is just one metric (and the most crude). From a rider-time saved perspective it gets really complicated. Riders from Bitter Lake will save a huge amount of time. Riders from Lake City will save less. Riders from the main part of Pinehurst (to the east) will be somewhere in between. How does this compare to the rider-time saved by other riders? Hard to say.
Then there is the network. Metro spends an enormous amount of service hours sending buses to Northgate. Unlike other stations north of downtown (Capitol Hill, UW, U-District, Roosevelt) these stations are not “on the way”. The buses have to make a major detour to serve the station. But they do so because there are so few stations north of Northgate. There is a huge gap between the Northgate Station (at 103rd) and the Shoreline South Station (at 148th). Pinehurst Station will shrink that gap. There will be crossing bus service — a grid of sorts. This means a better network (fewer detours) and a more efficient network (more frequent buses). All of this will save riders time. This itself can be considered valuable (even if it is hard to measure). Someone trying to get from Lake City to Bitter Lake will save a huge amount of time. Two-seat riders (e. g. Lake City to Licton Springs, Bitter Lake to Wedgwood) will save a huge amount of time as well. The overall network will be much better. We will mimic Vancouver in at least one part of the city. But this will be hard to measure.
Likewise it will be hard to measure an overall ridership increase. There are many moving parts. The transit system is not static. The driver shortage is less of an issue now but it hasn’t completely gone away. Funding issues remain (and that could change). Even the city itself changes. New apartments and condos get built. All of these things impact overall transit ridership and it is hard to isolate one part of town or the impact that one station has.
This is all related to capital spending. Liam brought up service. That is a different beast and I’ll comment there.
This is a bit of a short term perspective IMO. If you’ve visited the areas around those stations, you’ll know there’s very little right now. Basically single family homes, many of which are unoccupied or demolished presumably due to developer activity in the areas zoned for high density around the stations. The low current ridership is no surprise.
But Shoreline especially has aggressively rezoned around the stations and is still building supporting infrastructure (145th street bridge rebuild, 146th? Street pedestrian bridge, etc.). I expect the story will be very different in 10-20 years.
@Jackson,
“This is a bit of a short term perspective IMO”
You think?
But hey, SODO and Rainier Beach Stations are only getting about 1800 daily boardings, and they have been in operation for over 16 years now. Where is the outrage? Where?
But the LLE stations are doing their jobs. When LLE opened, ridership on the 1-Link surged by between 20,000 and 30,000 new daily boardings. That is a lot, and I see no reason to try to trim back service on various parts of the line. None. Don’t tinker with success!
And people on this blog fundamentally misunderstand previous discussions about turning back trains at Northgate. The purpose of those proposals wasn’t to reduce service in SnoCo to more closely match demand, the purpose was to increase service where it is needed. And only where it is needed.
Using a short service overlay (NGS to IDS) would alleviate overcrowding in the urban core. And could potentially do so without significantly increasing the LRV requirement and exacerbating the distributed storage problem. That would be a good thing!
But hey, on to the next big service expansion! FWLE opens soon!
And speaking of FWLE, we have a date, so where is that countdown clock?
I feel like it’s too early to declare that the ridership numbers are not meeting expectations yet. I feel like 3 to 5 years is enough time to properly guage whether the extension has beared fruit or slowly than expected working towards its intended goals. We still don’t have the 2 Line open across the lake, Stride to Shoreline isn’t open, TOD is slowly building out, people’s transit patterns take time to reorient, etc.
I agree. I also think there is a big difference between “meeting expectations” and “worth it”. Personally it has met expectations. I felt like the estimates were way too high. But I still think the project was worth it. Northgate is really a poor terminus. It is difficult for buses to get there — from the freeway or on local streets. Maybe the line could have just been extended just to 145th but that would have required extra work on the freeway (to connect the station to HOV lanes) and that would have pushed the cost up (and ultimately not saved you that much money). Going to Lynnwood was a good compromise and not crazy excessive. It is a worthy project.
Put it this way: If Lynnwood Link was part of ST3 it would be the second best value (behind Ballard Link). Even Ballard Link may prove to be a worse value (if the cost keeps going up and they screw up the stations).
The biggest L Abt the situation is not going up aurora. Simply due to highway pollution around stations. We could have went back and built a line along i-5 once there are more electric vehicles on the road.
Since it’s already built and running, it’s too late to answer whether Lynnwood Link is “worthwhile”. It’s there, and if ridership is too low, we should upzone near the stations. Housing is very expensive around there; there is plenty of demand. Most of the world would love to have the problem of a rail line with low ridership surrounded by sparse, expensive housing.
Judging by the anemic upzoning near the MLK stations, Seattle is not to be trusted to do enough for future stations. Building Pinehurst Station is a mistake.
They did upzone around the stations. But since they built the stations so close to the freeway (and there are green belts by most stations) they are limited to what they can build*. The other issue is that it is a long ways from the center of the city. Proximity matters.
Pinehurst has the same problem in terms of development. It is clear that they will upzone the area (as I’ve pointed out numerous times). I don’t know why people think there are no plans to upzone when it is so easy to find the documents. Here is the map: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/reporter/index.html?appid=ff89ad19b1064784aaef8a334a90584c. It is highly likely that many of those areas will see further upzones (given the recent election results and the overall political trends in the city). Anyway, again, that isn’t the problem. The problem is that they built the line too close to the freeway. It hurts walk-up ridership at every station. The only station that benefits from being close to the freeway is Lynnwood, and that is because it is connected to freeway buses coming from the north.
While Pinehurst has the same flaws as the other stations it at least is closer to the city and closer to a lot more (existing and planned) density. Like all the stations it will be dependent on feeder buses but it should do better than most for those reasons.
Picking out a station (e. g. Mountlake Terrace) and saying it is a mistake seems like flawed logic. It really didn’t cost that much to build each station. It cost a lot to build the line. It is easy to say that building the line was a mistake. I don’t agree, but that is a reasonable argument. But once you have committed to a line it makes sense to build each and every station. They are all remarkably similar in both function and cost.
*Some of the construction just started. Thus it really isn’t fair to judge the ridership levels of stations when it is likely there will be a lot more people close to the station very soon. Nonetheless, this doesn’t change the fundamentals. All the stations will get most of their ridership from feeder buses no matter how much they build.
Christopher Cramer,
So would you move to this “up zoned” neighborhood in Lynnwood? Just because there’s light rail in Lynnwood or Federal Way, doesn’t mean there’s that much demand for it. We’re talking families with kids and single family homes with cars, not the sort of walkable environment that’s on Capitol Hill.
I can’t imagine being single and car free in Lynnwood or Federal Way, light rail or no light rail.
@tacommee
Would you fly economy seats? Would you drive a Toyota instead of a Lexus. It’s absurd that only housing we must insist on only building single family housing.
Plus don’t you also sometimes say apartments are only for the rich. Then you flip over to say it’s only for the poor.
WL,
You bring up fair points. But TOD is often “housing rejected by everyone” and that’s why so little of it even gets built. A light rail station doesn’t make a place worth living in alone, it’s not some sort of magic.
The Tacoma Dome is the most transit rich place in Tacoma. It’s also maybe the worst place in the whole city to live. Adding more transit doesn’t make the T-Dome a nicer place. In fact Sound Transit wants to tear our Freight House Square…. the best thing in the whole neighborhood and close to the only retail…. for even more transit most of the City will never ride.
“But TOD is often “housing rejected by everyone” and that’s why so little of it even gets built.”
As if urbanists don’t exist, and people who want convenience, or who want to live near work.
“The Tacoma Dome is the most transit rich place in Tacoma.”
It doesn’t have housing and is a concrete industrial hellhole. The city of Tacoma has talked about putting a village there but has taken no steps to implement it.
Lynnwood TOD has already run across this problem. The city leaders wanted really tall office buildings. They wanted to mimic Bellevue. But there just wasn’t enough demand to work in Lynnwood. Keep in mind what drove Bellevue office development: Microsoft. By being midway between Downtown Seattle and Redmond, Bellevue office space was fairly attractive. There is nothing like that in Lynnwood. Now, of course, the market for office space has collapsed. It is hard to build a new office skyscraper in Downtown Seattle, let alone Lynnwood.
There could be residential towers, but the numbers don’t pencil out (yet anyway). tacomee has a point — part of the problem is the location. Living in a tower in Belltown or the Denny triangle is quite attractive. You can walk to various places and they are thriving neighborhoods. The same is true for many satellite cities. Downtown Tacoma is attractive. Downtown Edmonds is as well. But Lynnwood Station is not — other than the light rail. But that light rail only gets you that much. The farther north you go, the less attractive Link is. Good transit in general only gets you that much. In the case of Lynnwood Station (and all the Lynnwood Link stations) it is close to the freeway (where people don’t want to live). It is OK (I’ve lived in that part of Lynnwood) but it isn’t like living in Roosevelt or Capitol Hill (even if you ignore the transit advantages of Roosevelt and Capitol Hill). The point being, even if they allowed residential towers, it isn’t clear that anyone wants to build them.
The one exception I know about is Northgate. Developers were willing to build higher, but the city dropped the ball (https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/08/19/northgate-sees-first-highrise-proposal-but-it-rides-on-contract-rezone/). With midrise going in everywhere, it is unlikely they will build high rises. The same situation exists at every station. It just isn’t a great value to tear down a six story building built a few years ago and replace it with a twelve story building. In many cases you get only one shot at it and they blew it.
The impact of taller buildings is also exaggerated. Yes, a fifty-story residential tower will hold more than a six-story one. But sometimes a bigger building comes with more space around it. Sometimes a twelve story building doesn’t add much more than a six story one. If you only build a handful of those taller buildings, it really doesn’t matter. I’m glad that taller buildings are going up in the U-District but ultimately that isn’t what drives ridership. It is the overall density that exists everywhere in the area. Look at Capitol Hill. No highrises anywhere. Yet it has the third-most riders in the system. That is because it sits in the middle of town and has a lot of mid-rise and even low-rise density. Not just residential density but it is a major cultural center (and it has the nearby college).
Mike Orr,
Looking at the entire history of Tacoma…. this “urbanism” you speak of doesn’t show up. There’s commerce, free enterprise, capitalism, monetary speculation, a strong boom and bust cycle…. but there’s absolutely no “urbanism”
The Tacoma Dome is 100% a shit hole and nobody with actual money to invest is itching to change that. There’s nothing on earth Sound Transit, Pierce County or the City of Tacoma can do to force investment in the Tacoma Dome. They already tried and failed.
Here’s the thing…. Tacoma and Federal Way are absolutely not Seattle or Wallingford. Very different places, very different people. So light rail to the University District is an excellent idea and light rail to Federal Way or Tacoma is a really bad idea.
Why Sound Transit is a bad idea is that the “railheads” see light rail as a one size fits all solution for transit (and everything else) . If a place is not as suited for light rail as the University District or Capitol Hill, why we’ll use TOD and the new “urbanism” to remake the neighborhood more “transit friendly” .
People on this blog are in love with the urbanism of Europe, or Japan or even New York City, but these places took decades or even centuries to build those urban environments. Making a parking garage next to the Tacoma Dome a transit hub is just a waste of time and money. Can you imagine living there? Car free?
So…. I will post this here because it will effect some people coming and going to the Shoreline South/148th Station Link station:
The on-ramp from 145th St to SB I-5 is currently closed.
Additionally, both the SB off-ramp from I-5 to 145th, and 145th St itself will also fully close starting tomorrow. This is on the west end of the I-5 overpass and is part of the roundabout project.
So if you access Shoreline South/148th Station from the west side of the freeway using 145th, please be aware and make the appropriate changes.
Pedestrian access will supposedly still be maintained.
https://engage.shorelinewa.gov/145corridor
I discovered this by accident last night while leaving dinner on Aurora. I had to drive all the way around through Pinehurst. Errr….
I was just looking at this last night. I was thinking about combining a trip to Costco, Twin Ponds Park, and the Shoreline South station area I’ve been talking about. I noticed the 333 (the 145th and 175th route) is 15-minute frequent every day. Then I noticed it goes right past the park entrance at 155th & NE 1st. A note on the map says this is a reroute due to ongoing construction on 145th. It didn’t say what the construction was, so I guessed either street work or the ped bridge. Then I found out Costco is closed today, so I think I’ll do the rest of it, and maybe throw in a 65 ride from Lake City to see eastern 145th again. But how to get to Lake City without suffering 30-minute routes, backtracking on 145th, or riding the 65 all the way up from UW station (too long)? Ah, the 61 to the rescue! And do my eyes deceive me, the 75 is really 15-minute Sundays now? Well, that gives me some choices.
@Mike Orr,
The reason for the bus reroutes is the ongoing construction on 145th. There have been, and will continue to be, periodic full closures of 144th at either end of the overpass.
So Metro is just avoiding the area until such time as the roundabouts are substantially complete.
Has the ped bridge started construction?
@Mike Orr,
The east landing of the ped bridge is essentially complete but still fenced off. You can see that at the north end of the station. And you can see what appears to be a section of the “Trail Along the Rail” too.
The west landing for the ped bridge has recently been scraped off and surveyed. It’s sort of hard to see over the noise walls at the station, but if you are on the west side you can walk out through the church parking lot.
I assume they will move the sign bridge over I-5. It appears to be in the way.
Here is the website for the bridge: https://www.shorelinewa.gov/government/projects-initiatives/148th-street-pedestrian-bicycle-bridge. Here is the main webpage for the roadwork: https://www.shorelinewa.gov/our-city/145th-street-corridor/sr-523-n-ne-145th-street-i-5-interchange-project. Here is the page for construction updates on that roadwork: https://engage.shorelinewa.gov/145corridor.
The 333 is detouring to 155th and Meridian for now (https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/333.html?preview=true#route-map). I’m not sure how long this lasts or if the schedule just follows the construction. For example the project page says 145th is closed until September 17th. If the street opens up does the bus suddenly go on 145th? I doubt it. My guess is it will continue on the current detour until they know that 145th is open both directions for a while (they may just wait until the entire project is complete). The bus stops on 155th will be there when the project is done (the 345 and 346 use them and those buses haven’t been rerouted). But on Meridian between 145th and 155th the stops are temporary. I think that section of Meridian should have (coverage) bus service but that would require a bigger restructure.
The 155th routing is the one on the 333 route map, so I assume it will remain until at least the next service change.
a nice and somewhat detailed uk-produced (itv) documentary look at the overall superstructure and engineering challenges of the 2 line bridge work.
Today I rode the new 249 DART between Spring District Station and Bellevue TC via South Kirkland P&R. I was the only rider on the bus for the whole journey.
I don’t see any real use to the Spring District – South Kirkland section. Aside from a few stores at 120th and Northup, everything’s easily accessible from Link or the 250 (which takes 116th-Northup). I’d rather end it at South Kirkland, at least when the route will shortly be extended to Medina in the middle.
If the new 249 has to run, it should stay on 92nd. But, really, the 249 should just die. There are plenty of other routes that could use its service hours to improve their frequency.
Yeah. In Bellevue alone, I think restoring service to Woodridge is more important.
I do think Woodridge is probably more important to serve than Medina – at a minimum, the length of the walk or cost of the Uber ride to work around lack of service is significantly higher there. But, it would probably be a weekday daytime-only route, as the 246 was previously. Evenings/weekends, there’s just not enough service hours to go around to run routes like this without cutting other routes from twice an hour to once an hour that carry way more people.
Speaking of FWLE:
We have a date now, shouldn’t we also have a countdown clock?
Have at it horde……
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/mayor-harrell-dont-backtrack-on-ballard-west-seattle-light-rail/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=owned_echobox_f&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawMkU_9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmyf6GYw2GglE_6itcg2CkVQZTmVKuUZWtiQpTiTP-r4P6iHmDQbuLJkuRkT_aem_Nb8SZsrs30ofVbfV65YkFA#Echobox=1756846964
He needs to get serious about upzoning. Both West Seattle and Ballard already have rapidrides.
We need land use such that it becomes obvious to serve Ballard and West Seattle, rather than debatable. Bellevue and U District have a bunch of high rises and mid rises, but what about Ballard or West Seattle?
The problem with West Seattle Link is the lack of stations and the cost. There are only three stations and the project costs about $7 billion. So even if and when they add density close to the station (and they will) it is bound to be a bad value. Theoretically they could add skyscrapers (and it would like the Denny Triangle) but I don’t think that is realistic. Even then it isn’t clear it would be a good value.
Gosh, is Bruce still mayor?
Not for long I’d guess…. so who cares what Harrell thinks anyway?
Of course Katie over at the Transit Riders Union will parrot any impossible transit campaign fib to get elected, so I wouldn’t count on anything meaningful out of the Seattle mayors office in the next few years…
The mayor is wrong. It’s time to kill the second tunnel. Run an automated Skytrain stub line from Westlake to Ballard, stopping through SLU and Seattle Center. Kill West Seattle entirely. This is win win for everybody.
From the ST article: “Harrell said he’s also open to studying a single-tunnel future for Sound Transit lines, where Ballard trains connect at Westlake Station and West Seattle trains connect to existing tracks near Stadium Station.”
The single-tunnel alternative is alive! We got the ST board to notice the issue!
“This idea, meant to save money compared with the current plan to build super-deep downtown stations and track, was aired last week by transit board member Claudia Balducci of Bellevue, and has yet to be analyzed. Questions remain about whether one tunnel can provide enough capacity.”
Balducci has noted that her Eastside constituents would experience the long transfers downtown going to the airport.
If peak demand exceeds capacity, ST could reinstate the 515 and a 41-like route.
“If peak demand exceeds capacity, ST could reinstate the 515 and a 41-like route.”
The most crowded segment was between Pioneer Square and the CID. There are plenty of buses on Third Ave that could ease the crowding. I think it may even be an algebraic fluke anyway where riders are riding Link when they’d probably stay on the surface and be on buses. .
And the original forecasts were likely based on surveys of people commuting in 2010 (census year) during the peak. That’s since changed quite a bit too.
Claudia Balducci, the perennial voice of reason on the Sound Transit board! The financial difficulties presently faced require bold thinking, and Balducci seems to be the one actually working on radical solutions while others propose mere tweaks.
The first thing I would do to increase capacity is use different trains. You could increase capacity by about 17% by just using different trains (https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/12/20/will-link-waste-its-capacity-for-the-sake-of-operational-convenience/). At the same time, you invest in technology to run the trains more often. At worst you just put up with occasional delays.
If somehow Link manages to become way more popular than it is now then you start running express buses. The express buses don’t have to be tailored to the area that has the most congestion. For example it is quite likely the most congested part of the system will be downtown to the UW. But the only reason it would be highly congested is because there has been a huge increase in ridership from downtown to various parts of the north end (not just to the UW). It is also highly likely that the problem only occurs during peak. Thus a bus from downtown to Lake City Way would reduce crowding on the train. Such a bus would be popular, as many riders would avoid a transfer. But again, it is highly unlikely we will actually need that.
Run an automated Skytrain stub line from Westlake to Ballard, stopping through SLU and Seattle Center. Kill West Seattle [Link] entirely. This is win win for everybody.
I agree. An automated line from Ballard is the way to go. Smaller trains, running more often. Point the tracks towards First Hill. Meanwhile, West Seattle should get a major bus upgrade. More service and better infrastructure. I think the best option is to connect the Spokane Street Viaduct to the SoDo busway. Then riders get the best of both worlds. They connect to Link *and* they have a fast one-seat ride to downtown.
Consider someone in High Point, the most densely populated part of West Seattle. Here are some destinations and the trade-offs:
In four out of five cases, the rider is better off with the bus heading downtown. The only exception is for a trip to the UW. But even then it is a minor delay. They transfer at SoDo instead of Avalon. In contrast, for every other trip it is a big delay as the rider has to make an extra transfer to a train that at best runs every eight minutes.
What is true of High Point is true of *most* of West Seattle. Alki, Admiral, Morgan Junction, South Seattle College (my alma mater). The vast majority of riders in West Seattle would be better off with more frequent service connecting them to downtown via the SoDo busway. It is possible (https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/07/west-seattle-by-bus-instead-of-light-rail/). They just need to do it.
You also need to fix the bus pathway between SODO busway and 3rd Ave. It’s a lot of lights and slow movement, and can grind to a halt during stadium events, although I suppose the option catch Link at SODO at least provides an alternative.
Yes, the connection between the SoDo busway and the Third Avenue busway should be improved. Doing so would benefit other riders as well (e. g. those coming from Renton).
Speaking of which, there is very little talk about the fact that West Seattle Link will make travel from Renton and Kent to Downtown much worse. The buses will be forced out of the SoDo Busway. While the busway is not perfect is it still a lot better than the other streets.
Oh, and there is more. Right now the RapidRide C does not end at Westlake. It continues to South Lake Union. Thus a lot of West Seattle riders have a one-seat ride to the north end of downtown. I expect the RapidRide H to follow suit at some point. Thus a lot of riders would be looking at being forced to make two transfers (one in West Seattle, one at Westlake) versus a direct bus.
Let’s also look at a non-random destination (the airport) that is a major trip generator – under current plans, everywhere from Capitol Hill north loses direct service – i.e. the vast majority of the population centers north of downtown – so that Ballard gets it. Eastside riders also will need to transfer, although this was always the plan. Since ST is notably bad when planning transfers, have they paid any attention to the fact that nearly every rider on the system going to the airport – and every other destination south of SODO – from the north and east will be forced to transfer, and that all of these people will be doing so at one or two stations?
I concur – run a frequent, automated line from Ballard to Westlake, with the design allowing for a future eastward extension, and have the transfer take place there while keeping the 1 and 2 lines as they are.
I really think it comes down to West Seattle. West Seattle Link is a fundamentally bad project. Not only is it a bad value, but it will make things worse for a lot of existing riders:
1) Riders of buses like the 101 and 150 will have a slower, less frequent ride into Seattle.
2) Riders from the south end will no longer directly connect with the north end. Thus a lot of riders will be forced to transfer.
3) Regardless of what they decide to build, the stations in the new downtown tunnel will be worse. Thus riders from the south end will walk further to their downtown destination (or they will transfer).
Then there is the opportunity cost. What could we build instead (for the same amount of money). For the vast majority of riders from West Seattle, improving the buses would be better than West Seattle Link. This would be better than this.
If we go with bus infrastructure in West Seattle, there is no need for a second tunnel. At worst we tie in the Ballard Line with the main line. I would much rather have Ballard Link be a stand-alone, automated line that ends in Westlake and can eventually be extended to First Hill. But it wouldn’t be the end of the world to tie them together. It would make the most sense to run trains from Bellevue to Ballard. That makes sense both geographically (an east-west line and a north-south line) and for tying together the South Lake Union business district with the Bellevue Downtown.
With these changes, the vast majority riders would be better off.