Next Wednesday, October 8, 6-8pm: Seattle Neighborhood Greenways is hosting “Community Crossroads” at El Centro de la Raza in Beacon Hill. The event will feature a panel discussion and community engagement opportunities considering the future of Seattle’s most dangerous corridors, including Aurora Ave N, MLK Jr. Way S., and streets in South Park.

The Puget Sound Regional Council is updating its “Regional Transportation Plan” and taking input at a series of events across King County through October. RSVP to an event near you.

Local Transit & Streets:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

68 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: traditional system”

  1. Ban copper recycling state wide. Problem solved. Whatever meager amount they actually recycle is not worth the cost of replacing the stolen wire. Better yet, tax all recycling of copper and use the money to switch away from it

    2. There has been some work to regulate the recycling of copper. But it is inevitable that a black market would exist (just like there is a black market for stolen car parts). I once served on a jury where the defendant was a meat thief (he sold it to restaurants). Like most crime, there is no easy fix.

      1. The easy fix is to add more security and enforce the law with actual consequences. People don’t have a problem with theft because they can get away with it. They should be gambling with their livelihoods. Same should go for HOV violators. “The chances I get caught a slim and it’s just a small fine anyways”

        But we’re afraid of doing that because it’s discriminatory? The vast majority of people (regardless of the group) are not criminals and we should make sure they live the best and safest lives possible.

      2. Um, SKR, the reason that we don’t “enforce the law with real consequences” is not that we’re avoiding punishing tawny people. It’s because voters — especially but not exclusively suburban voters — are unwilling to tax themselves enough to pay for all the officers required to do the enforcing.

        I’d like that world, too, but it would mean increasing state taxes by at least a quarter and maybe more. We could save some money by having facial recognition cameras everywhere like in China, but I doubt you want that world. I don’t.

      3. The easy fix is to add more security and enforce the law with actual consequences.

        We throw more people in jail then any other country. We are fifth in terms of incarceration rate, trailing only El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda and Turkmenistan. Obviously the problem is not lack of law enforcement.

        Like I wrote, crime is complicated. Here is a report the state did: https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1033/Wsipp_Evidence-Based-Public-Policy-Options-to-Reduce-Crime-and-Criminal-Justice-Costs-Implications-in-Washington-State_Full-Report.pdf. If you think this report is simple I would hate to play you in chess. (Although I guess one simple takeaway is that prevention programs can be very cost effective.)

      4. > They should be gambling with their livelihoods.

        Yes! Breaking any law should make it nearly impossible to become gainfully employed, take out loans, or otherwise meaningfully participate in society. That’s always worked, and it’s clearly the easiest and best solution for our problems today.

        We’re clearly wasting our money on transit, housing, and social services that only benefit the undeserving few. The police would certainly be much more efficient with that money, and I’d bet the courts and prisons could find a good use for all the buses.

        Cracking down on enforcement is obviously the most effective way to deter criminals from choosing to break the law. As the 47th poorest state in the 195th poorest country in the world, we simply can’t afford to provide housing, food, healthcare, and employment to would-be criminals – at least not until after our unbiased police catches them and our courts convict them, at which point they can sleep, eat, and work in prison with 24/7 supervision for as long as it takes for them to accept what our society has to offer.

        Any “evidence” to the contrary is simply anarchist propaganda meant to accelerate the breakdown of civilized society.

      5. SKR-

        Your philosophy echoes that of John Locke’s Social Contract Theory – the theory of government that once was shared by the US and many western countries, even ones that were not democratic (as the US was not for most of it’s existence). In a nutshell, citizens give up certain police powers to the government, and in return it enforces laws and protects the law-abiding from the criminal.

        I’m confident that a number of folks on this forum won’t like it when I point this out, but it is the Asian autocracies (particularly China) that come closest to abiding by this social contract today. They also have nicer high speed rail. They make the rules of their society very clear, and are willing to punish those that violate then ruthlessly. They have no problem with executing entire families. Today a court in China sentenced 11 members of the same family to death for their involvement in a huge human trafficking and scam racket. Even for lesser crimes, the fact that a crime that you commit might bring shame upon your entire family is usually an effective deterrent.

        I personally feel far safer traveling anywhere in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Thailand than I do in Seattle. The worst “crime” I have ever been subjected to in any of those countries was an unscrupulous restaurant operator in Guilin trying to overcharge us by a few 10’s of dollars for dinner.

      6. The US system is based on the idea that it’s better to let one guilty person go free than to lock up an innocent person. Those nondemocratic countries have a lot of political prisoners. I’d rather have a few street criminals than a lot of political prisoners, or being a political prisoner.

      7. @Albert E., yhy in the world are you emphasizing our position on the poorest states and nations ranking? In fact Washington is the third most productive in terms of GDP per capita of all states and the US ninth globally using Purchasing Power Parity? Yes, those are essentially the same as what you asserted.

        Was this an elaborate troll using sarcasm or were you attempting to hide our wealth as an excuse to belittle our success and support reactionary brutality?

        Most people do reform after tangling with the law, and we already have “habitual criminal” laws like “Three Strikes and You’re Out” for those who don’t.

        Your point, whatever it is, is not well made.

        (Ed. Fixed formatting.)

      8. Mike, in the autocratic countries one of the rules is that you don’t criticize the rulers, at least very directly or loudly. That’s part of the social contract. And also part of the contract is that loudly individualistic or narcissistic behavior is not tolerated. Not even amongst the ruling class. Any number of cabinet-level officials in China have, umm, “disappeared” recently. The richest woman in Vietnam (a real estate developer) was sentenced to death for corruption. As in Star Trek, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I’m not making a moral judgement one way or the other on this, simply stating my observations.

        An observation of my own behavior is that the fact that I have (distant) relatives in some of these countries makes me much more reticent about what I post on the Internet. In fact, I rarely post at all – this forum is probably the only place I do on any semi-regular basis. I do this fully cognizant that anything put on the Internet is there FOREVER, and who knows when a revolutionary court somewhere/sometime might hold it against me or my family. Or a million years down the road a hyper-intelligent species located in a far-away star system might intercept wireless signals containing the TCP/IP packets for this forum, and since they worship a deity called “Sound Transit”, decide to launch an all-out attack to annihilate our heathen planet.

        Yes, I am borrowing liberally from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy there ;-) Have a good night!

    3. I do agree that finding a way to destroying copper thieves’ fencing network is more efficient than investing on anti-theft measurement.

      When I was a kid, the city where I grew up had a huge problem of bike thief. That eventually went away after part of the old town infamous for selling stolen bike was gentrified. After that most bike thieves lost their fencing network and this eventually made stealing bike less profitable.

    4. Are there places without copper theft? I assumed they were taking the copper to Mexico to sell like I’ve heard they do with cars. Wouldn’t taxing/eliminating copper recycling lead to more copper in landfills and more copper mining? That’s the reason for aluminum, paper, plastic, and glass recycling.

      1. I assumed they were taking the copper to Mexico to sell like I’ve heard they do with cars.

        I think it is both. That is what I was getting at. The state has worked to eliminate the local market for stolen copper. It used to be that no one cared where you got it from — now they do. I’m sure some of those companies cheat, but not that many. Ultimately though, like all stolen goods, there is always a market. But you can do things to make it less attractive while also working on reducing crime in general (see above link).

  3. > Anna Zivartz argues it’s time to revitalize the Mount Baker Transit Center (Op-Ed, the Urbanist).

    I wonder what could be the new plan here.

    Probably route 7 could continue on rainier. The other routes at the transit center are route 8, 48 and 14.

    I’m not sure still moving the transit center closer to the station is worth the circuitous route the bus routes would have to take to get there though.

    Maybe at the very least some bus shelter roof while waiting at the transit center similar tot he Bellevue one?

    1. I still like the idea of converting 26th St. and Forest St. directly north of Mt. Baker Station into a one-way bus loop, then closing the existing transit center and selling the land off for development. Note that thru buses, like the 7 and 106, would not serve this loop, they would just serve regular bus stops on Rainier. The loop would be used only as a layover facility for bus routes that end there, such as routes 8 and 48.

      Note: this conversation would involve the removal of all car parking, plus probably some repaving (to handle the weight of regular bus use), and the construction of a couple of bus shelters.

      1. And I would reroute one of the 8/48 to serve Beacon Hill, since post-East Link, the current plan is have them parallel each other from Mt baker all the way up to Yesler. The 4 could cover the gap to Mt. Baker.

      2. I still like the idea of converting 26th St. and Forest St. directly north of Mt. Baker Station into a one-way bus loop

        Which direction would the buses loop? I assume clockwise. So the 48 would take a right on (which becomes 26th) a right on McClellan and a left on Rainier. It would layover somewhere along the way. That seems like it work out just fine. You don’t have to worry about the 7/48 transfer because that would happen to the north.

        But what about the 8? Since you sold off the transit center you can’t cut through there. That means the bus is making a lot of turns. It would have to turn right on McClellan, left on Rainier, right on Forest, right on McClellan and left on MLK. Theoretically you could have same stop transfers for the southbound 7 and 8 except you would have to move the bus stop for the 7 (to the area in between McClellan and Forest). Going the other direction you would cross the street. I would add a crosswalk north of Forest and block off the western driveway to the land currently used for the transit center (as part of the sale).

        Meanwhile, the 14 would have as many turns as today.

        I’m not sure it is much better in terms of transfers than today. The main thing the area needs (and the focus of the article) is that the area needs to be more attractive. Selling off the transit center could help. If the area gets developed (like across the street) then the area would be more inviting. I could see how that could happen. Sound Transit owns adjacent properties in the transit center*. Then there is the lot on the corner that used to be a gas station but now sits empty. Assuming that can be developed (i. e. as long as the tanks didn’t lead) the combination is pretty good size (and shape) even if US Bank holds onto their property and Starbucks holds on to their tiny triangle to the south. But it would have to be developed. An empty lot that just sits there for years would be worse.

        Meanwhile, the area where the buses would not layover would probably remain the same. Maybe Cash America would sell the parking and keep the pawn shop (which is actually kind of nice looking). You still have the UW Laundry building. You also have lots owned by Sound Transit just east of 25th. These are vacant and not really a park. Ultimately the city needs to do a lot of work. They need to get with Sound Transit, the UW and private developers and figure out how to develop the area.

        *You can see shape and size of the properties by zooming in with this map.

      3. “Since you sold off the transit center you can’t cut through there. That means the bus is making a lot of turns. It would have to turn right on McClellan, left on Rainier, right on Forest, right on McClellan and left on MLK.”

        Route 8 (and Route 14 too) would then just go straight on McClellan to 26th and make a left there rather than MLK or Rainier. The TC spot would be repurposing Forest Street. Route 48 could turn right at McClellan (rather than crossing lanes to turn left like today) and make that left at 26th too.

        I would suggest making Forest Street one-way exiting onto Rainier. SDOT would need to adjust local circulation and maybe buy out a local business, but the land lost to a new TC would be much smaller than the land lost from eliminating the old TC.

        And Rainier and Forest could work so much better if the signal just had just two phases — Rainier though traffic or traffic exiting from Forest (including pedestrian crossings) rather than the four phases used today.

      4. Route 8 (and Route 14 too) would then just go straight on McClellan to 26th and make a left there rather than MLK or Rainier.

        OK, but for the 8 it would still means a lot of turns (and lot of left turns). So left on McClellan, left on 26th (which becomes Forest), left on Rainier, right on McClellan and left on MLK. If anything, that seems worse. I think a clockwise turn (for McClellan/Forest/26th) is inherently better. You have more right turns and fewer left turns. The only left turns are onto Rainier and MLK (areas that have to support them). This means you could get rid of the left turn from eastbound Forest northbound Rainier. This would simplify the intersection and give more priority to pedestrians.

        I would suggest making Forest Street one-way exiting onto Rainier.

        If anything, I would do the opposite. At that point the intersection is basically controlled by the walk lights. Allow me to elaborate. Imagine Forest is one-way westbound. There are two phases for the traffic signals, one for those walking/driving straight on Rainier. Another for those walking across the street. You can’t turn left in any direction. You can turn right from southbound Rainier to eastbound Forest. Now imagine the opposite. You still have a phase for those walking/driving straight on Rainier. But now you need two additional phases. One is for the cars (and buses) turning left from Forest. You also need a phase for pedestrians crossing Rainier. This can’t be the same phase. Thus you have three phases instead of two.

      5. The concept for accessible mt baker has S Forest St pass through the existing transit center and 27th Ave connect through the existing P+R. Bus stops would be located on the eastern side of 27th Ave.

        Something like that could work right now: extend 27th and add bus bays, then have buses loop via MLK > 27th > S Forest > MLK, passing through the existing transit center on the way back to MLK

        https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/amb

      6. There are acres of space west of Mt. Baker Station that could be developed for bus layovers, housing, businesses without destroying any greenspace. Currently, there is an evolving plan to re-develop the UW laundry site into housing, but there’s a large swath of undeveloped land around Winthrop Street that could be used much more efficiently. I know property negotiations are difficult and neighborhood groups have their private agendas, but there’s an enormous opportunity to build MBS into a magnificent neighborhood.

        Yes, close that dinky little bus layover between Rainier and MLK and convert it into commercial and residential properties.

        Metro needs to offer on-demand transit to the Lighthouse and the legacy Mt. Baker loop that connects those areas to both MBS and Judkins Park Station. Give the 14 a sensible route path without any backtracking and extend the 4 to MBS. The 8 could be terminated closer to Jackson Street; it doesn’t need to run to MBS if the 4 is running on 15-minute headways.

    2. The recent SDOT lane changes around the Mt Baker Transit Center (MLK PBL, No RTOR, more protected signal phases — and the lack of sensor maintenance so signal phases run their maximum time without any car or pedestrian there) have resulted in worse bus travel times. Only the new NB bus lane on Rainier has helped.

      It’s like SDOT likes to create new problems for bus speeds that weren’t there before.

      So rather than merely revisit the transit center, I would rather see a rethinking of the entire bus circulation in the vicinity along with it.

      And there remains no easy path for a bus to climb Beacon Hill from Mt Baker TC. The hill is steep and the streets are narrow so it’s very hard for a bus to turn corners on Beacon Hill. Metro had toyed with a new route segment on College in some plans but even those bus maneuvering geometries look awful.

      Finally, the large number of new residential buildings near Judkins Park have created such new population density that the Mt Baker TC area kind of pales in comparison there days. I’ve suggested that other Link stations may be better transit centers for Metro. Mt Baker doesn’t have the destination pull of a Westwood or Northgate or even an Alaska Junction — so it’s bigger value to Metro seems to be more about overall route structures and comfort stations for drivers.

      1. > The recent SDOT lane changes around the Mt Baker Transit Center (MLK PBL, No RTOR, more protected signal phases — and the lack of sensor maintenance so signal phases run their maximum time without any car or pedestrian there) have resulted in worse bus travel times. Only the new NB bus lane on Rainier has helped.

        The largest change around there is the new pedestrian crossing and the also associated pedestrian signal.

        It’s worthwhile tradeoff. it was never that enjoyable to see students run across the road because there was literally no protected pedestrian signal

      2. I’ve suggested that other Link stations may be better transit centers for Metro.

        The only (good) reason there is a transit center in Mount Baker is because the buses naturally merge there. The Link station is just a bonus. Basically you have Rainer, 23rd and MLK coming from the north. You only have Rainier and MLK going south. You could send the 8 and 48 further south but there isn’t much point (they would overlap the 7 or 106). Despite the awkward tail of the 14 it is the same story. The buses need a place to layover, thus the transit center. The same thing is true in Lake City. The Fred Meyer is a de-facto transit center. The 61 ends there, as does the 372 on weekends. There are a lot of roads coming from the south and fewer going north. Mount Baker is the opposite.

      3. Incidentally, I’ve been on a detoured (articulated) #36 on College when a power line fell at the south end of the 12th Ave bridge. It might be too narrow for regular service where buses may have to pass, but it must be nearly there. If it could work for the 8 or 48 to use College, I’d ride it all the time.

  4. re: Kevin’s article on Home in Tacoma:

    A couple barriers I’ve encountered are:

    1) Tacoma Public Utilities recently changing their regs to make their jobs easier and their costs lower, but putting the burden on the homeowner who is trying to add infill housing. HiT added the ability to lot-split, so adding a DADU, they now insist on moving the electrical service for each structure to the structure it’s feeding in the off-chance that the lot might be split in the future. They also insist on burying the lines. My lines were already buried, but now they aren’t because I have to move the service sitting on my garage to the main house. That can add between 30-50K to the cost of a build, making an already unaffordable project that much less likely to pencil and get built.

    2) The City of Tacoma hasn’t regulated alleys so that they allow pedestrian access. There is no speed limit, for instance. So instead of an 8 foot walkway to to the obvious alley gate, they insist on 150 foot walkway to the street, which in practice will rarely be used. Time. Money. Poor land-use.

    Metrics should be built into TPUs performance metrics around making infill housing cheaper. The city should do a thorough review of their regulations to see which add time and costs to minimal benefit.

    1. Yeah, TPU kind of runs like its own little fiefdom. The City has really tried to be more builder friendly overall however…. there’s been a lot of turnover in the last decade with City employees and that’s been a real positive rolling out the new improved zoning regulations.

  5. The Urbanist thinks that bus lanes along Denny will encourage people to switch to cars. They’re forgetting the reason why people are on Denny Way is because they’re going to I-5 ..not Capitol Hill or elsewhere in the city. There is a severe lack of effective transit between the suburbs and SLU. To convince people to switch from their cars to bus, there must be frequent service from all corners of the suburbs directly to SLU. A faster 8 to Cap Hill isn’t going to help workers from commuting to/from Lynnwood or Federal Way.

    1. A faster 8 to Cap Hill isn’t going to help workers from commuting to/from Lynnwood or Federal Way.

      Uh, yes it will. Take Link from Lynnwood or Federal Way to Capitol Hill. Then transfer to the 8 to get to wherever on Denny you are headed. Right now the slowest part of that (by far) is the 8.

      1. This is the exact mentality that is preventing regular, car-loving people from switching to transit for their commute: not serving major employers directly. In other words, transfers.

        I’m not against transfers and they’re needed. But if tens of thousands of people work in a concentrated area at the same time M-F, there should be express service from the suburbs to SLU directly. Riders have been begging CT to establish a new express route to SLU. Their excuse “there’s lots of transfer options from downtown to SLU”. This adds time… and time is money and stress for the average worker. Transit geeks and transit planners are incapable of comprehending the concept of the customer experience and solely focuses on efficiency. This keeps people in cars.

      2. First of all, we do run buses to First Hill. But they don’t get that many riders. Partly it is because they are stuck in traffic

        Second of all, the idea that people will never transfer is absurd. Sure, transfers add time. So does stopping for other riders. You are basically saying that people won’t take transit unless it runs express from their house to their work — in other words, operates like a car.

        Seriously, how would this work? There are dozens upon dozens of suburban neighborhoods. You are suggesting that each should have has an express to South Lake Union? Not just once a day, but often. That is just silly. There is no way anyone has the budget for that.

        Look, some people are going to drive. Some will take transit. There is no magic bullet. There is no “one thing” that will push people to taking transit. Speed, transfers, waiting, total trip time, cost — they all matter. But you are ignoring the worst part of the journey for someone trying to commute from Lynnwood to South Lake Union: the trip after they get off Link. Getting from Lynnwood to Seattle is quite fast. It is often faster than a car. But getting from Capitol Hill to South Lake Union is not. The Metro 8 is so slow, you might as well walk. Not only that, but the Metro 8 is infrequent. One of the main reasons the Metro 8 is infrequent is because it is so slow. Bus lanes would definitely help.

      3. There are other ways to get to SLU than the 8. The C, 40, 62, and 70 go from Westlake and don’t get bogged down like the 8 does. The purpose of the 8 is to get from Capitol Hill, Uptown, the CD, and north Rainier to SLU, not to get from everywhere else to SLU. That’s what the other routes at Westlake are for.

      4. There are other ways to get to SLU than the 8.

        Of course there are. But the idea that a faster 8 doesn’t help riders from Lynnwood ignores the fact that it runs right by a station. Of course it would help people from the north.

    2. Not everybody in a car on Denny is headed to I-5. There are plenty going to Capitol Hill too. I was in one such car a few months ago, and we spent more time looking for parking than it would have taken to wait for the 8. And spent more money on parking than the #8’s bus fare. There is plenty of room for better service to attract more people out of cars for these types of trips.

      1. You’re right: not everyone on Denny is headed to I-5. But during rush hour and during special events, I’d say most of them are. If you need to head to Cap Hill from SLU, many are bussing, walking or scootering.

      2. But during rush hour and during special events, I’d say most of them are.

        Sure, but that is irrelevant. Who cares? Seriously, look at what happens during a ball game. Traffic is terrible. Despite the fact that transit options to a game are outstanding, lots of people prefer driving. So what? There will always be people who prefer driving, no matter how good the transit options are.

        But in the case of the Metro 8, that’s not the point. I really don’t care why the bus is so slow — I just want to make it faster. Adding express buses to South Lake Union wouldn’t make the bus faster. Even if you managed to get a lot more people to take transit (which seems unlikely) the lanes would be full of cars (as other drivers take their place). This is the nature of induced demand. I want the bus faster (and more frequent) so that riders — including those from the suburbs — have a better alternative.

    3. The majority of people on Denny Way are actually continuing towards Capitol Hill during evening rush hours according to SDOT’s traffic study (https://seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Studies/Route_8_Corridor_Study_Final_Report_20250207.pdf). It found. that 396 vehicles turn towards Yale (page 160) and 207 vehicles per hour towards Boren (page 128). That adds up to 603 cars per hour turning towards I-5, but others may turn away to other local destinations, such as using Boren to turn onto Fairview.

      On the other hand, 341 vehicles per hour continue east (page 140) and Metro’s ridership data (https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiZDMwMWExOTMtOTY3ZC00MTU5LTgxMDgtODM4MTZiYTExMzJkIiwidCI6ImJhZTUwNTlhLTc2ZjAtNDlkNy05OTk2LTcyZGZlOTVkNjljNyJ9) shows that 338 people ride eastbound Route 8 buses per hour during evening rush hours.

      That adds up to 679 people per hour going east (not including pedestrians), but only up to 603 going to I-5. Once in Capitol Hill, the 8 directly connects to routes 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 43, 48, 49, 60, RapidRide G, the First Hill Streetcar, and the Link. Pretty much anywhere east of I-5 that you’d reach by driving on Denny Way can be accessible from Route 8 with at most one transfer and a bus lane would allow Denny to serve far more people than it does today.

      I’d also like to reiterate the point I made in the article that I don’t think I-5 traffic would even be negatively impacted by a bus lane on Denny. The bottleneck to I-5 is the poor design of the Yale on-ramp and even a single lane of traffic shared with who continue to drive to Capitol Hill would be more than enough to exceed its capacity once you consider that most people would start taking the bus instead. In all of our communications with SDOT about this, they have repeatedly stressed the negative impacts for drivers continuing east but never once have they raised a concern about highway throughput.

  6. Just a thought I had – Why don’t buses change drivers when the driver needs a break, instead of stopping at a layover space? Link does this sometimes with an operator change at between SODO and Beacon Hill. It could potentially save a lot of a layover space, and allow the creation of new interesting routes where layover space is constrained. The driver can just take a 15 minute break when waiting for the next bus, which they can take over. One potential reason for avoid this is cascading delays, but at least for frequent routes that use headway-based scheduling, this seems good?

    1. I think the slang for that is called a “seat slide”.

      It works when schedules are mostly predictable, like with an exclusive path like a busway or grade separated light rail . The problem with buses in mixed traffic is that on-time scheduling can be disrupted pretty easily, creating a real time reliability problem when setting up a seat slide plan with breaks.

      1. That sounds like driver slang. I think the formal planner term is “fallback layover.”

    2. Don’t operators have to do a full walk around, systems check, seat/window adjustments, and other preparation activities before starting their shift with a coach? It seems like that would take up most of that 15 minutes each time, unless Metro loosened operator’s individual responsibility to ensure the coach is operational before they drive off.

      1. I occasionally see buses change drivers mid-route. The last time was on a 131/132 southbound at the I-90 overpass earlier this year. The second driver is waiting at the bus stop, gets on, adjusts their operating cabin, gets a briefing from the first driver, and they sometimes have an apparently-unnecessary conversation, then the second driver continues the trip. I don’t see them going all the way through or around the bus checking things. I assume this is a shift ending/starting rather than a break.

        Once or twice the second driver wasn’t there, so the bus remained stopped until they came. I don’t remember seeing the second driver come, so I may have gotten off the bus after a few minutes and walked somewhere.

      2. Vehicle checks, or pre-tripping, is done at base when the bus has been sitting for a while. All that’s needed to swap out drivers mid-route is adjusting the seat and mirror..then they’re good to go. Mid-route swaps are often done at 4rh & Royal Brougham. I’ve also seen them done at 45th & Univ on the 31/32 and at Lander Station for the 50.

      3. I often see driver changes at South Kirkland P&R. Sometimes it’s quick (2-3 minutes); sometimes it takes forever. There’s one driver that does a full walk-around every time she takes over. The tires and brakes get a complete inspection using a flashlight! I guess there must be some liability for drivers if they take over a coach with some non-functional system.

        I assume drivers are on the clock from the time they leave the bus base until they return to base. Does anybody actually know how the contract works? If so, it would be best to minimize the time drivers spend going to catch their assignments.

  7. Urbanist has a new op ed going all in supporting dstt2 and how it’s the most critical part of st3. Not really surprising to see fron that organizationbut seems like a more nuanced analysis is called for. There are a tin of issues with that boondoggle, not least of which is the cost

    1. Is it the Urbanist calling for a downtown tunnel, or was that just an opinion piece by a college student who may not have studied it in as much depth as they maybe could have?

      I mean all they needed to do was research read the last three Wednesday open threads here and they would have been a bit more educated about what may be possible.

      My take is that it was surface level analysis that took the ST ridership projections at face value and added the boogeyman of the cost of an additional OMF. There wasn’t any recognition of a second tunnel’s depth, the terrible transfers, the lack of redundancy, or the inconvenience of everyone from north seattle having to transfer to get to the airport, and people from south of downtown now not being able to get to stadium station – except via transfer.

    2. The Urbanist is non-paywalled so everyone can read the article and make their own conclusion: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/10/02/op-ed-link-light-rails-success-depends-on-second-downtown-seattle-tunnel/

      The title says “Op-Ed:”. STB distinguishes articles “by the STB Editorial Board” that represents the editors’ official opinion, vs articles by individual authors, which reflect the author’s opinion. In the latter case some editors may disagree with it. This is a longstanding journalism principle: each Seattle Times issue has one unsigned editorial (the owner’s opinion) amid several op-ed articles representing a range of opinions (sometimes the opposite of the editorial). “Op-Ed” usually means the non-editorial articles or the entire opinion section. However, I’m not sure how The Urbanist is using the term (to show the editors’ opinion or to distance the editors from it), and I don’t know any Urbanist staff to know how they’re thinking.

      “some observers have questioned the necessity of the portion of the DSTT2 between CID and Westlake”

      I wish it linked to one of our articles about it to give a more complete picture of the alternatives. STB is the only one who has published pro-single-tunnel articles that I know of.

      The article doesn’t mention our suggestion for an automated Ballard line. That would cost less (so easier to afford), have smaller trains/tunnel/stations (so easier to site an OMF base along it), and could run every two minutes like the Vancouver Skytrain (helping address capacity issues) without the cost of drivers (so even more easier to afford).

      It also doesn’t give any solution for DSTT2/Ballard’s ballooning cost that threatens to make ST’s preferred alignment unbuildable.

      We want ST to study an automated Ballard line fairly and quantify the cost, ridership, and other issues, rather than just dismissing it without study.

    1. I found the op-ed to be very amateurish. In particular, it never discussed the advantages of automation (more frequent trains; smaller station vaults; more vertical and alignment flexibility; less break time; trains that can run closer together). It also never discussed the planned time-consuming transfers involving multiple escalators that will affect most riders. It never discussed how overly deep stations take so much time to get through to make long trips that no one will want to use them for short trips. It never even discussed how ST wants to now buy higher capacity train cars and that post-Covid peak needs are less. It never discussed that the current plan is so unaffordable that it would take 40-50 years to fund and build.

      A long-time problem that ST has had has been that too many decisions get pushed by everyone other than people who actually know how to efficiently build and operate a rail system — yet portray themselves as authorities just because they’re transit advocates. They think they’re fighting car people rather than people who understand that what ST wants to do could be done better. This just continues that tradition.

      Perhaps the most valuable part of it is that local transit advocates need better education on why they’re saying. Too many transit advocates are still too eager to deny the difficult reality (with tradeoffs) of designing, funding and running a productive rail system — yet are too uninformed to see that there are better ways to build a system.

      1. Al S.

        I look at the folks at “The Urbanist”, also and the op-ed folks at The Seattle Times just to fair, as constantly pointing out problems without providing any real solutions. Journalism takes itself way too seriously in Seattle.

        Back in the 1970s, “investigative reporters” pointed out all the flaws in our mental hospitals, causing most of them to close. Next came the journalistic bombast against America’s “war on drugs” and an unfair legal system. Now journalists focus on the unsolvable homeless problem…. and I doubt the most of the journalists at “The Seattle Times” or “The Stranger” really understand that all three of these social problems are in fact, the same problem.

        Sound Transit doesn’t have a political problem, it’s a math problem. Journalists are lousy at math I guess? The cost of Sound Transit projects has just ballooned…. and we’re not even building yet, so the other shoe hasn’t dropped. We’re looking at something like a 40 year timeframe to build that second tunnel.

      2. “…and I doubt the most of the journalists at “The Seattle Times” or “The Stranger” really understand that all three of these social problems are in fact, the same problem.”

        That’s provably false.

        If mental health and drug use caused homelessness, why aren’t there a ton of homelessness in Buffalo or Detroit, with pretty much the same rate of mental health issues and drug use?

      3. Closing inpatient mental health facilities in the 1970s caused rents to skyrocket in the 2010s and 2020s that pushed people out of their homes?

        Most homeless people don’t have chronic mental health problems. Some have jobs, and some have families. They just don’t make $80K per year to afford market-rate housing, and there’s not enough subsidized housing or shelter spaces to go around.

        The ones you see in Midtown and 12th & Jackson are only like 3% of the homeless, and the most troubled ones. Most of them don’t want to be visible.

    2. This kind of thing is why I have asked them to open their comments again. But to be fair, their comments tended to attract ranters and cranks. I get why they did it, but this sort of article definitely deserves a response. Has anyone here ever written an op-ed?

      1. I agree. I use Bluesky as the place for comments. My first comment about the article was a request for them to add comments again. Anyway, I wrote a rebuttal on Bluesky but it is annoying to have to keep within the character limit each time.

  10. The preliminary ST Express 2026 restructure dropped today. The first proposal is expected October 6th. We’re working on an article.

    The night owls William C mentioned are three routes from Lakewood, Everett Station, and Downtown Redmond to downtown Seattle. They would stop at 85% of Link stations and some other P&Rs along the way. Frequency is 15-60 minutes. Implementation may be delayed or deferred if the operating agencies don’t have the capacity.

    It would bypass Seattle non-regional-center stations that have Metro night owls (Pinehurst, Roosevelt, UW, Capitol Hill, Beacon Hill, all the Rainier Valley stations, and Judkins Park). In the suburbs it would bypass Angle Lake, TIB, Shoreline North, Marymoor Village, East Main, and South Bellevue.

    ST has backed down from deleting/truncating the 510, 545, 577, 578, or 59x. And the people of Federal Way, Auburn, Tacoma, and Lakewood rejoice.

    The 512 won’t have reductions for the 513 increase or lose Ash Way P&R. The 574 is truncated at Federal Way and increased to 15 minutes. The 535 gets Sunday service.

    The most complicated issue is Issaquah. The 554 is deleted. The 556 is increased to all day and terminates at Bellevue TC (losing the U-District segment). Issaquah bus stops remain as-is (Highlands, City Hall, TC). The 566 serves the south Bellevue Way segment, so that takes care of that. Metro will presumably have to backfill the Gilman Blvd stops in the western Issaquah “regional center”, which the 208 currently serves, the proposed 554 was going to serve but now won’t, and Metro’s Issaquah Highands-Mercer Island expresses will bypass.

    1. On the Eastside, if we assume that Link is running, this is very bad. The one star is Sunday service on the 535.

      As you say, Sound Transit is neglecting to serve Issaquah. They’re also neglecting the Bellevue – U District connection. Meanwhile, they’re continuing to run the 545 and the north leg of the 566 that’re duplicating Link! Please, reinvest service to places that need it!

      This is so counterintuitive that I can only assume that Sound Transit has taken my recent advice that Link keeps breaking down so often that it should be ignored in bus restructures. On the Eastside, outside the 550, they essentially are ignoring it.

      1. When it comes to the East Side, ST Express is not the only game in town. They aren’t even the main game. Metro runs most of the buses and they will continue to run buses from Bellevue to the U-District as well as Issaquah to Mercer Island. Oh, and the new 566 doesn’t duplicate Link — it will run from Issaquah to Downtown Bellevue. That was the plan, it is just that originally they called that the 554 (you can see it on this map — https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/programs-and-projects/east-link-connections#gallery-2). Now it will be called the new 556.

        That being said I’m surprised that they are keeping the 545. I think this is a reversal from the previous plan. It suggests that frequencies aren’t changing either. This means that the 542 will only run every half hour (midday) which again is different than the plan.

      2. @Ross, I did mean the 566, which runs Auburn-Kent-Renton-Bellevue-Microsoft. Why it isn’t being truncated at Bellevue – which will let it avoid huge amounts of rush hour traffic – I don’t know.

    2. For the South Sound I like the goals but I’m not thrilled with the implementation. Here are the goals:

      • Discontinue service in light rail corridors that does not offer substantial travel time benefits over Link
      • Maintain service in high ridership corridors where Link operates, but would introduce substantial travel time increases during most time
      periods
      • Add overnight service in I-5 North, I-5 South, and I-90 corridors

      Sound great. But the implementation seems like a mixed bag. They retain express service to Seattle but it won’t be especially frequent. It would be trivial to have the 594 stop at Federal Way between Seattle and Tacoma. That would then provide fifteen minute frequency from Federal Way to Seattle. It would also mean that you wouldn’t need half of the 574 buses they plan on running. That in turn could mean more buses from Tacoma to Seattle or something entirely different (e. g. a midday Sounder “shadow” that ran express from Sumner, Puyallup, Auburn and Kent to Downtown Seattle).

      Overall it just looks like they punted. Rather than do the real work of figuring out a new network bases on the stated goals they just tried to keep most of it the same.

    3. I’m thrilled they retained the 594, and created a 15 minute 574 bridge to link, though they didn’t implement Ross’s more elegant restructure.

      The night owl is also amazing. I’ve definitely experienced span-anxiety, pondering $100+ ubers as I wonder whether I missed the last 594 home from 2nd and Stewart.

      Now if they just increased the T-line span to provide an Escape from the Tacoma Dome, coming off the 574.

      1. I’m really pleased that ST is finally accepting responsibility for owl service!

        I think it needs some honing though:

        The biggest regional nightlife area — Capitol Hill — is skipped. The given reason is that there is Metro service. However that nightlife has a regional draw and should have direct regional service.

        I’m also don’t see this plan serving hospital ERs well either. Suggesting that it does seems like it’s mostly a lie.

        However, these would require only simple corrections to the system. Getting the owl service up and running would be amazing — and routes can be honed later.

      2. @Al S., I agree, Capitol Hill shouldn’t be skipped. What’s more, the south route feels like it spends too much time on I-5 for too few riders, though I might be wrong.

        How about we end the Eastside and South routes in Capitol Hill after serving downtown? Also, have the South route stop at TIBS; it shouldn’t be too much of a delay given that it’s already serving the airport.

      3. William C:

        “… the south route feels like it spends too much time on I-5 for too few riders, though I might be wrong.“

        Oh I think you’re right. In particular, Star Lake doesn’t seem important to serve. However, I could see ST owl buses leaving I-5 at 272nd and following 99 to SeaTac. But a small diversion into TIBS seems more valuable than one into Star Lake. Over time, I’m expecting Stride owl service too — so TIBS would be an even more important transfer point.

        The Metro Owl Service page is here:
        https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/travel-options/bus/night-owl

        Glancing at the actual schedules show some large time gaps on several of these routes. That really destroys transfer viability. The long transfer waits overnight really do necessitate showing a system of both ST and Metro routes shown together rather than in individual routes. I’d hate to have to wait an hour or two at a transfer point at 3 am.

    4. I have questions out to ST, and if there’s a public announcement Monday with more details, I’m hoping to have a restructure article Tuesday and a night owl article Thursday.

      “Overall it just looks like they punted. Rather than do the real work of figuring out a new network bases on the stated goals they just tried to keep most of it the same.”

      I think it’s ceding to legitimate pushback in Federal Way and Pierce County, where Link will be 15+ minutes slower and almost an hour to Federal Way. Even some STB authors are uneasy about truncating those routes. Harder to explain are the 545, 510, and 512. Redmond one-seat riders probably want their bus in spite of severe congestion on I-5 and 520 west of Portage Bay. The Redmond-SLU peak-only concept seems to be gone.

      I think the 545 should at least get a frequency reduction, since Link will be running every 8-10 minutes.

      Kirkland is probably furious the 545 is continuing while downtown Kirkland still has no express to Seattle or Bellevue. (The 535 is not downtown.)

      The 566 was left out of the East Link Connections scope, maybe waiting for the Stride 1 restructure, since it benefits South King rather than East King. Still, this restructure is systemwide, so that includes South King’s interests.

      “The biggest regional nightlife area — Capitol Hill — is skipped. The given reason is that there is Metro service.”

      I think it’s more to keep the bus on the freeway. If the North Owl sticks to I-5, it will detour to Shoreline South station (to serve Shoreline/far north Seattle), Northgate station (a regional center), and U-District station (a regional center). Capitol Hill station is not near a freeway exit, and neither are Roosevelt, Beacon, or Rainier, and it’s awkward to get to Judkins Park.

      For the East Owl, Marymoor Village is probably bypassed because Downtown Redmond is close, and so the bus can get onto 520 quickly. Then at Bellevue TC it will probably get on 405 and I-90, which explains bypassing East Main and South Bellevue. Judkins Park would be awkward to get to from the freeway and back.

      “How about we end the Eastside and South routes in Capitol Hill after serving downtown?”

      Good idea.

Comments are closed.