- Harrell, Wilson take different roads with Seattle transportation ideas (The Seattle Times, $)
- Seattle Releases First 3-Year Outlook to Advance City’s Long-term Transportation Vision (SDOT Blog)
- Sound Transit is upgrading the lighting systems at some of its busiest light rail stations as a “literal glow-up” (The Platform)
- Cherrypicking Data, Harrell Paints Misleading Picture of Seattle’s Traffic Safety Progress (The Urbanist)
- Metro Scales Back Scope of RapidRide K, R Lines (The Urbanist)
- As part of an expanded night owl network, Sound Transit proposes overnight bus service between Everett and Seattle (Snohomish County Tribune)
- The Slow Death of the New York City Public Bench (New York Times, gift link)
- Cities across the USA are pivoting toward building new BRT lines instead of streetcars, and this pivot is showing up in ridership data as BRT is showing a stronger rider recovery than streetcars (Eno Center for Transportation)
- In Chicago, Drivers Parked In Bus And Bike Lanes Will Soon Face Fines If Caught On Bus Cameras (Book Club Chicago)
- Duvall Growth Plan Faces Challenge After Disregarding New Housing Law (The Urbanist)
This is an Open Thread.
So what’s the plan with the DC streetcar? String more wire along the route and just have a 2.2-mile trolleybus?
It’s interesting how it’s worded: “electric buses powered by the overhead lines currently being used by the fixed rail streetcar”. My first thought was, how can that not be a trolleybus? Does that mean DC will add to the number of cities with trolleybuses? I couldn’t find “trolley” anywhere in the article. But how else could a bus connect to overhead wires. Yes, with a pantograph, but that’s essentially the same thing to non-engineers. I assume the reason for avoidng the word trolleybus is people who’ve never heard of it wouldn’t recognize the word, and maybe the author is unfamiliar with it too.
Having Katie Wilson on the Sound Transit Board will be a huge step forward in the Board’s expertise on transit.
Brent White,
Unless Katie has a machine that prints money, “expertise on transit” isn’t going to help with the Sound Transit Board. The non-Seattle, non-King County board members may have a wildly different view of the future of Sound Transit.
It’s tough to say what sort of Mayor Ms. Wilson might be. Here campaign is just the basic “thumbs up” for every progressive cause without anything new or realistic about dealing with the City budget. Not to kick Katie here because Mayor Bruce is really the reigning king of the “feel good” fuzzy info.
“Unless Katie has a machine that prints money, “expertise on transit” isn’t going to help with the Sound Transit Board.”
The board makes a lot of decisions and sets expectations on things that don’t cost money or only cost a little money. These can improve passengers’ lives immensely. We’ve had a lot of discussion about one of them: adding a Federal Way stop to the 590/592/594. Then there are other potential restructures. Or reallocating money to operations and maintenance even if it slows down the capital program. A boardmember who understands passengers’ needs can help prevent ST from making the most passenger-hostile decisions. That would have made the past better, and could help in ST’s decisions over the next few years, since there are a lot of them: the ST Express 2026 restructure, the Link realignment too, etc
I don’t know how she feels about specific projects, but she might not have championed the CID/N and CID/S stations. If the Harrell-Constantine duo hadn’t pushed it through, it wouldn’t have happened. She could argue to reverse it. She could say West Seattle doesn’t need more than the cheapest bridge, or that West Seattle can be scheduled later to allow something else to move forward, or that Ballard should be automated, or a lot of other things. It’s the mayor and city councilmembers on the board that are North King’s voice, and the other boardmembers try hard to defer to them on North King issues.
“Here campaign is just the basic “thumbs up” for every progressive cause without anything new or realistic”
I wish she had more specifics about things other than housing too, but her past TRU endeavors show some of her transit priorities and how she’d do them. Even if only transit fans know about them, it’s enough for my decision.
Candidates’ public campaigns have to focus on the few issues that energize the most voters. Everybody knows housing and public safety are those issues. So of course Wilson and everybody else will harp on those. But thinking people understand that that’s not everything the mayor is or will do: they’d also do a lot of things on other issues. Or if the candidate really is single-issue and doesn’t know about anything else or wouldn’t give it the attention it deserves, then they’re likely a bad candidate one shouldn’t vote for.
But it’s rare for a candidate to be so single-issue. In any case, we know Wilson is multi-issue because of all her work in the TRU: that wasn’t all about one particular public housing strategy; in fact, none of it was.
Mike Orr,
Dow really has the power in all ST decisions. He’s the CEO and he appointed most of the board. If Wilson wins the mayor’s race, she has about 3 years to get anything done. I’m not sure Sound Transit will be that important to her just because of the time line.
Katie is smart to go “all in” on housing because it the biggest issue Seattle has. If she can’t make some progress on it, Seattle will have another 1 term mayor. I’d bet she’s another one term mayor just because the issue is so dire and the money to come up with solutions is astronomical. Earlier this Summer the Seattle Times had a nice piece about just how hard “social housing” or public housing on a sliding scale is to run successfully.
from the Times article….https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/why-thousands-of-seattles-affordable-housing-apartments-became-vacant/
Rents in “workforce housing” then shot up.
A decade ago, affordable-housing operators were restricted from charging more than $1,008 for a one-bedroom. Now, at the Rise on Madison on First Hill, one-bedrooms are listed at $1,635.
It’s $1,644 at Four Amigos in Beacon Hill.
At Bryant Manor North in the Central District, $1,694.
On the other hand, someone working a full-time, minimum wage job in Seattle today can afford an apartment that costs $1,080 per month.
In these buildings, rent is limited by the federal housing agency’s formula that adjusts each year based on the region’s median income. Rent soared over the past decade alongside Seattle-area residents’ earnings, as well as costs to build and operate affordable housing.
All the while, local and state housing agencies weren’t paying close attention to competition creeping in from the private market.
Seattle developers had been building mostly studio and one-bedroom apartments, too. Aided by historically low interest rates, they built towers of them at a record-breaking pace over the past decade. Then, population growth slowed during the pandemic
=====================================
So my guess is Katie has her hands full with “social housing” and she focuses on little else. Honestly, that’s what her supporters want.
“Dow really has the power in all ST decisions.”
Where did you get that idea.
“He’s the CEO and he appointed most of the board.”
He’s now under the board’s authority. He got the CEO job, so the people he appointed don’t “owe” him anything more. If the board decides something against his wishes, he’ll have to do it. Dow himself has gotten a more flexible since he became CEO. It’s no longer “West Seattle is essential and must be first, we must have CID/N and CID/S, DSTT2 is non-negotiable, no Ballard automation” but “We’ll consider all those things, and I may not object to changes as much as I did when I was county exec”. It’s no longer his responsibility to find a cheap way to replace the Administration Building, so why should he care as much?
“I’m not sure Sound Transit will be that important to her just because of the time line.”
Why did she create the Transit Riders Union and spend years on transit policy if it wasn’t important to her? Why would she throw all that away? Especially if she gets into a mayoral role where she’ll have an unprecedented chance to do things she couldn’t do otherwise? You don’t just throw away a vision and opportunity like that. She may not do a lot, she may not do big things, but I’m sure she’d do more than Durkan and Harrell have done, and have at least some innovative ideas.
If the housing problem really is so unsolvable, then at some point people will stop blaming the current mayor for it, and realize there’s no point in voting out a mayor because they didn’t do something they couldn’t possibly do. There are a lot of incremental improvements a mayor can do even if “public housing units for all low-income people” is unachievable.
The imbalance of subsidized rents being higher than market-rate rents is a temporary issue, and an unusual occurrence. And we’re in a situation where the economy is in flux and unpredictable because of arbitrary federal tariffs, the shutdown, lack of data reports, sudden reversals on climate and trade policies, deporting agricultural and construction workers, sabotaging federal agencies, etc. So people and companies can’t have a straightforward long-term plan and execute it; they have to wait and see what happens and hedge contingencies. That’s doubtless contributing to the rent imbalance to some extent. One shouldn’t throw away a long-term strategy because a short-term fluke inverts it for a year or two.
“All the while, local and state housing agencies weren’t paying close attention to competition creeping in from the private market.”
Again you’re talking about an unusual short-term inversion.
Mike Orr,
Maybe Mayor Wilson wants changes to Sound Transit…. but without Dow she’s dead in the water. First off, all the non-Seattle and non-King County members are likely suspicious of whatever the Mayor of Seattle comes up with. Second of all…. with Federal funding cuts and with a recession on the horizon, things get really bad for the ST budget. I see the ST board just hiding for 3 years hoping for a better economy and a Democrat in the White House. That would be a solid political move, but it doesn’t solve the big ST problems.
Plus if Dow doesn’t like what Katie’s plans are, he’ll just slow roll things until she’s out of office.
Housing certainly is her big issue… but I’d guess it’s also ends up her big liability. Can the government make any headway on housing affordability when the housing market is largely market rate and privately owned? And the Feds are trying to get out of it?
Here’s the “down and dirty” truth about housing in Seattle. The most rent a full time minimum wage worker in Seattle “should” pay in rent is a little over a $1000. Apartments cost $1500 and up. Public housing costs $500,000 per unit to build on average. Seattle doesn’t release the number of minimum wage workers in the City (even though I’m the City has a pretty good idea go how many there are)
Stepping up in income…. somebody making $70,000 can afford $1700 or so in rent. What percentage of the City workers is paying more, often way more, in rent than 35% of there income? What’s this mean to the City longer term?
This is what’s driving Seattle’s “one and done” string with mayors and a great deal of unhappiness in the Emerald City.
Dow really has the power in all ST decisions. He’s the CEO and he appointed most of the board.
The CEO works for the board. Basically Dow does what the board tells them to do and if he doesn’t do a great job they will find somebody else. It is like a “weak mayor” or superintendent/board arrangement, not a governor/legislature situation. Dow could be fired tomorrow. He doesn’t have the real power — the board does.
Yes, he appointed a lot of the members of the board. But that is likely to change over time. There will be a new head of the county and that will shake things up a bit. Time will tell.
“Maybe Mayor Wilson wants changes to Sound Transit…. but without Dow she’s dead in the water.”
You’re making a lot of unfounded assumptions about Dow’s power. Dow may have had that power as County Executive and lead King County ST boardmember, but he’s not in that role anymore. You could just as easily say an ex-mayor has all that power in retirement, but it wouldn’t be true.
“First off, all the non-Seattle and non-King County members are likely suspicious of whatever the Mayor of Seattle comes up with.”
They’ll look at the substance of the proposals, not who the mayor is. They’ve dealt with several Seattle mayors.
“with Federal funding cuts and with a recession on the horizon, things get really bad for the ST budget.”
That’s a separate issue that only partly affects these. The rest of the board have a responsibility to that too. They can outvote the Seattle mayor and the entire North King delegation if they want.
“I see the ST board just hiding for 3 years hoping for a better economy and a Democrat in the White House. That would be a solid political move, but it doesn’t solve the big ST problems.”
That’s the default position. The first realignment basically punted and postponed things. The second realignment might do that too. But some boardmembers and Dow are saying unprecedented things they haven’t said before, so there’s a chance they might do more pro-actively.
“Plus if Dow doesn’t like what Katie’s plans are, he’ll just slow roll things until she’s out of office. “”
You’re making a lot of assumptions that Dow doesn’t like what Katie would want, that he won’t like what she would want, and he’s committed to obstructing her on them. None of those seem foregone or likely in my estimate. And if Dow is really obstructionist and unproductive, Wilson might be able to convince the board to fire him and find somebody else.
The people Dow appointed to the board may not be on the board forever. It depends on how future elections go.
Do you think the other boardmembers love DSTT2, CID/N and S, and West Seattle Link? Or did they just go along with them in the past when Dow-Harrell were on the board championing them? Do you think the Snohomish and Pierce boardmembers will retreat from their position to finish the Spine first and not let WS/BLE get in the way of completing them?
Ross Bleakney,
First off, Dow IS Sound Transit. He’s the CEO! He cannot realistically even be fired! Dow is telling the board what to do, not the other way around.
Yes, the ST Board will have changes…. but that will happen so very S-L-O-W-L-Y. I wouldn’t look for anything new or fresh out of ST…. they’ll just push all the project dates back and roll on like nothing has changed. What else can they do?
Mike Orr,
I think my Pierce County ST reps care about getting something (anything?) done positive for Pierce County. I don’t think they honestly care about what gets built in Seattle. There was so much hype about the T-Line and TOD and neighborhood revitalization and a booming downtown Tacoma…. and it just didn’t happen. Come to find out that building light rail in run down wasteland neighborhoods doesn’t make people want to live there…. or build there…. or do much of anything there. That’s a hard lesson learned for T-Town.
The way the money is structured in the subareas, I don’t believe pols on the board want to get too involved in local politics of transit stations not in their subarea. That’s smart really.
“Dow IS Sound Transit. He’s the CEO! He cannot realistically even be fired! Dow is telling the board what to do, not the other way around.”
Where did you get the idea that employees can tell their bosses what to do? Is that how it is in your company and all the companies you’ve been involved with?
Mike Orr,
Come on! You know as well as I do that Dow is running the show at Sound Transit.
Before “hiring” Dow as CEO, Sound Transit did a nationwide search for a new CEO who actually had experience running a transit agency…. but couldn’t find a single qualified person that wanted the job. Julie Trimm gave some lame excuse about family issues when she left…. and nobody else in the transit universe wanted the job.
So Dow was appointed “Grand Poobah” of Sound Transit. Terrible idea I think? The dude isn’t really a transit or construction expert, but was willing to take the job. It might be a shotgun wedding, but now Dow and Sound Transit are stuck with each other. And divorce isn’t an option here.
“You know as well as I do that Dow is running the show at Sound Transit.”
More unfounded assertions. No, I don’t know that. It sounds unlikely. What has happened in ST since Dow became CEO that shows he dominates it and he shot down attempts by others to do other things?
“Before “hiring” Dow as CEO, Sound Transit did a nationwide search for a new CEO who actually had experience running a transit agency…. but couldn’t find a single qualified person that wanted the job.”
How do you know that? How do you know who the other candidates were, their experience, and why the board didn’t choose them?
“Julie Trimm gave some lame excuse about family issues when she left”
Maybe she did have family issues. Some people do actually have an elderly relative who’s close to death or needs assistance, or they really miss their family.
“…. and nobody else in the transit universe wanted the job.”
Again, how do you know that?
“It might be a shotgun wedding, but now Dow and Sound Transit are stuck with each other. And divorce isn’t an option here.”
Even if they’re stuck with each other, that doesn’t necessarily mean Dow is calling the shots and overriding everybody else. Again, what instances of that have occurred since Dow became CEO?
Mike Orr,
I think you actually know the basic numbers Sound Transit has to work with. I think you’re also a smart enough person to know that whatever numbers ST is releasing about future projects, the final price is going to even higher the time frame way longer. You know that Sound Transit is in a world of hurt and it might take 30 years to finish the list of rail projects on the ST3 voter’s pamphlet.
Things are upside down at Sound Transit and Dow was the CEO of last resort. Come on! Were you not completely disappointed when he was “hired” ? And if the board ever fired Dow…. then what? Nobody with big transit agency experience wants the job. We are stuck here!
So ST can downsize or cancel its ST3 projects. I’ve said repeatedly I wouldn’t cry if that happened because there’s little essential there. I assume the full 2 Line and Federal Way will be finished, and Pinehurst station. I’d like the three Stride lines next, but if ST has to downscale that to more frequent ST Express service, that’s not the end of the world. I wanted Ballard Link, but not if it has 10-minute transfers downtown and a station at 14th instead of 15th or 20th. I don’t care if Everett, Tacoma Dome, or Issaquah are built or not. (Although I would like an extension to Ash Way.) What else is there to stress about?
Mike Orr,
What to stress about? Dow is running Sound Transit and neither Seattle mayor candidate has any realistic “plan B” for Sound Transit…. or anything else for that matter.
Not that Ryan Mello is a mountain leadership either. I’m afraid things at Sound Transit just rumble on and get worse. That’s the real trouble. Pols that just “turtle up” on hard choices and nothing ever gets resolved.
““plan B” for Sound Transit”
What does it need a plan B for? If it doesn’t resolve its ST3 project shortfall it will hit a brick wall and have to suspend those projects. That’s an automatic plan B if you like. I don’t expect it to substantially harm operations or debt service because it has plenty of revenue for those.
Operations and the Lynnwood-Redmond-Federal Way extent of Link are the essential parts of Sound Transit. Earlier it wasn’t the case, back before U-District and Northgate stations opened, we really needed ST to continue those projects. But they’re done now.
Restructuring of to make it a more effective transit network for less cost would depend on the majority of the board supporting it. I think that’s mostly out of Wilson’s or Harris’s or Balducci’s or Zahilay’s control, and I doubt anybody else available could do it either. We can imagine a perfect mayor with a perfect vision and such outstanding communication skills they could singlehandedly convince the majority of the board to their side, but who in Pugetopolis could even theoretically do that?
We’ve already offered a lot of technical suggestions to get there. We can’t force the board to adopt them, so we pretty much have to wait to see what they do.
Most likely they will debate the ST3 issues for a year or two, and either suggest some less-costly structural improvements or not, descope some things or not, or reorder projects or not.
Given that the board seems pretty evenly split between “spine first” advocates who want the Paine detour and the preferred Tacoma Dome station location and don’t want to truncate it, and Seattle advocates who want to Prioritize WS/BLE and don’t want any changes to it, I expect the most likely outcome will be to just postpone things in order to fit the budget. Or if they hit a brick wall they’ll have to descope things then.
All we can do is mostly sit and wait, and offer suggestions whenever they’re ready to hear them, and vote to affect the board’s makeup, and not despair because it’s not the end of the world.
If a mayor sets the right direction on inexpensive changes and other issues, it can provide a framework for dealing with a large budget-deficit issue. You don’t have to be scared and obsessed about the big deficit and ignore everything else. It’s best to have a good overarching attitude about everything, and get the small low-hanging fruit, and that puts you into a better attitude and position to address the big deficit problem intelligently.
ST’s budget shortfall is not so severe that Link and ST Express will stop running and we’ll have no regional transit. ST has plenty of resources to pay the bondholders and continue operations and maintenance. If anything has to give, it will be the large capital projects. Likewise, the city may have to make some large cuts like it has in the past, but it’s not going to stop functioning.
The mayor has a lot of power when it comes to transit. They control SDOT. SDOT controls bus lanes, bike lanes, traffic lights, etc. Look at what is happening right now (or just ended). Rinck launched a “Better Buses” campaign. “Citing the explosion of public support for bus lanes, she’s pushing for bus lanes and transit signal priority on Denny and Rainer, as well as making the 24/7 bus lane pilot on Aurora permanent.” That is a quote from The Transit Riders Union. Katie Wilson currently heads the union.
Of course the county runs the buses. But even so, the city can (and has) added additional service. One of the big reasons why we are running fewer buses than we used to is because mayor Durkan wanted a smaller transit levy. She went back and forth with the council and we ended up with far less money for transit. I see the opposite with Wilson. She will push for a lot more transit spending (as well she should).
Link is a different beast. Each board member has a vote. They influence other board members. Some members work for other members. More power rests with King County than Seattle. They try to reach a consensus but things could get really messy. Members can try and create a movement as well. For example I could easily see someone calling for a new vote.
“One of the big reasons why we are running fewer buses than we used to is because mayor Durkan wanted a smaller transit levy. She went back and forth with the council and we ended up with far less money for transit.”
I thought it was one or two councilmembers pushing to not renew the levy or to reduce it, not Durkan. Did Durkan do more than just try to find some consensus between them and the other councilmembers and herself that would get some kind of levy onto the ballot?
Its kind of rich for the Urbanist to accuse anyone of cherrypicking data.
Wilson seems like a space cadet with almost zero real world awareness. Her pie in rhe sky plans sound great bitvjust like nonealdlspurs she seems sorely lack8ngvon details.
You can’t be bothered to write something reasonably legible yet still share an opinion as if it’s insightful. Talk about almost zero real world awareness.
Also TIL painting bus lanes is pie in the sky.
I haven’t seen any coverage of it, but it appears the city is working to get the water-level section of Rainier Ave S (between Rainier Beach and Renton) back under control. It’s about time. Until a few months ago, I would be driving at 30 (the limit is 25) and people would be swerving past me in the turn lane, tailgating me aggressively, and I would see people coming the other way doing well over 40.
Now the city has put in a bunch of soft-hit posts to prevent illegal overtaking in the turn lanes, and better protect some sections of the bike lanes. On multiple occasions I’ve seen cops busting people for speeding. Harrell has sucked on LWB safety improvements but he apparently has not stood in the way of what needed to happen in this case.
Is that segment flooding? Why do you call it water-level? The rest of it doesn’t seem to be about people getting out of waterlogged lanes, but speeding or lane-changing for other reasons.
Not Bruce, but I like the “water-level” term for roads right next to the lakes.
Yes, it’s a common term for roads that travel along a shoreline.
This is all very last minute but I just got notified about this:
Seattle City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck plans to hold a press conference today, 1:00, at the the 12th Avenue E & E Union St bus stop (the bus lane we saved!), launching her Better Buses campaign. If you are able, this is a great opportunity to show community support for more bus lanes and reliability measures like transit signal priority in Seattle.
Councilmember Rinck not only heard and supported our calls to save the bus lane at 12th & Union – she wanted to build on the momentum. Citing the explosion of public support for bus lanes, she’s pushing for bus lanes and transit signal priority on Denny and Rainer, as well as making the 24/7 bus lane pilot on Aurora permanent. She reached out to TRU, as well as allies at the Transportation Choices Coalition, the Fix the L& campaign, Aurora Reimagined coalition, and ATU 587. Representatives from each group will be present to speak.
Scaling back Rapidride R is not the move in my opinion. That area of south seattle has seen chronic underinvestment and yet is poised to absorb a lot of the city’s housing demand in the next decade.
I actually like how spot improvements have been rolled out, in terms of red bus lanes. No need to wait for a ribbon-cutting. That might not work so well for pedestrian, bike, and scooter infrastructure though. When neighbors revolted at everything-everywhere-all-at-once investments on route 48, the then mayor seems to have taken his marbles and gone home.
We now know how to politically protect bus lanes that don’t yet have their full connectivity and service investments.
Jim Crow zoning laws will take more time to be rid of, even though it should be clear that the most new housing that can be built is more about getting zoning out of the way than in government investment. Both (including lots of nonprofit housing) are needed to meet the scale of the housing deficit.
New libraries, community centers, recreation centers, and senior centers belong on the first floor of TOD. These investments and allowing the TOD to be built go hand-in-hand.
Brent White,
The solution is often “cash and carry” instant solutions for a better city. I think in 50 years historians are likely to look at at the history of Greater Seattle and agree that one huge mega project (Sound Transit) sucked up billions that could have been spent in ways that would have had a much bigger positive impact.
New libraries, community centers, rec centers, public housing? Seattle can’t seem to come up with the cash to keep up the rundown community assets it already has.
Both Metro and the rest of the city and county pivoted to directing the most investment to south Seattle and other “equity” areas since 2020. The 7, 36, 60, 106, and 107 got repeated frequency boosts, more than anywhere else in Seattle, both through Metro’s countywide hours and Seattle’s TBD investments. The next RapidRide lines after the K and R are the 36 and 150. Note a quadruple benefit: route 7 got some next-arrival displays in the 2010s, ultra-frequency boosts in the pandemic, some transit priority lanes in the 2020s, and now the RapidRide R project is going through planning.
Rainier Valley is behind central Seattle and near north Seattle in infrastructure, amenities, and retail choices because of past redlining and underinvestment, and I believe basic geography (the difficulty in traveling east-west to neighboring villages due to hill and water barriers has hindered a large 2-dimensional market from forming like it has in north Seattle, and that limits the potential clients to any one business, and makes each area more oriented to downtown than to each other). But the investment profile is changing, and has been changing since 2000 and 2020. It’s just that it takes a lot of investment, infrastructure, and amenities to overcome the neglect in the 20th century and the basic geographic limitations. So it will take a long time to fully accomplish it.
7 does recover the best from The Pandemic per ridership dashboard.
Pandemic is really a test to transit dependency. Some service popular pre-pandemic never bounce back but 7/36 quickly recover. Even E Line doesn’t recover completely although I don’t know how much Link extension has to do with it.
I am not fully buying the idea of allocating more transit resource to “equity” area because I think certain types of “low-paying” jobs actually require private transportation more than “high-paying” jobs. The fact that 7 recovers so well probably speak more why 7 needs to be boosted.
FWIW, every single next-arrival display SDOT installed last decade in Rainier has been mothballed. Many of them didn’t even make it to 2020 as evidenced by their showing of arrival times in 2019 for many, many years.
Pandemic is really a test to transit dependency.
The pandemic accelerated the trend towards working from home. This has impacted all transit but especially those geared around office commuters. If you work at a job that can be done at home, the longer the commut the more likely you are to work from home. This is why the commuter trains and buses have been hammered while buses like the 7 are doing well. I’m sure there are plenty of people who used to commute to work on the 7 but now work at home. But a higher proportion use the bus for other tasks. The area is growing and the buses are faster which likely explains the overall increase in ridership. It would be even higher if not for the pandemic.
I am not fully buying the idea of allocating more transit resource to “equity” area
I’m not either because I lack confidence in the definition they use. It really shouldn’t be difficult to factor in low-income ridership given the low-income ORCA card. You could basically do the same sort of metrics they do for ridership (e. g. ridership per hour of service) but applied to low income riders. But that data is not easily available. Instead they come up with numbers that are clearly flawed.
The 7, 36, 60, 106, and 107 got repeated frequency boosts, more than anywhere else in Seattle, both through Metro’s countywide hours and Seattle’s TBD investments.
The 7, 36 and 60 are major routes that would justify RapidRide status (if such status is ever warranted). Yet they built the B and F Line instead (much weaker routes). Given the high cost of the RapidRide process it seems like we underinvested in those routes if anything.
The 106 and 107 are different matters. They don’t perform particularly well. But neither is super frequent so I don’t see anything unusual about raising them to fifteen minute status. If anything failing to increase the 27 — which runs right be several projects, not just Yesler Terrace — shows that Metro isn’t quite sure how to do the equity thing.
Scaling back Rapidride R is not the move in my opinion.
I’m not sure it makes that much difference. What matters most is frequency and right-of-way improvements. The frequency of the 7 is basically the same as a typical RapidRide bus. It was 7.5 minutes midday for a while but cut back with the driver shortage. Now it is 10 (about average for RapidRide). They are slowly adding BAT lanes. If WSDOT changes the freeway ramps they can add a lot more. (I would consider that a more important project for the route than RapidRide status.) Off-board payment would be great but that really should be done on a system wide or at least regional basis. It would definitely help but probably isn’t slowing down the bus that much. It would be nice to extend it to Rainier Beach Station but would probably require an additional restructure. Thus you might as well do that (whether it is RapidRide or not).
RapidRide is basically a way to get money out of the feds. Sometimes it is for things you probably should do anyway (like run the 7 more often) and other times it is for things that probably aren’t worth it (like shifting service to one bus while shortchanging another).
“I’m not sure it makes that much difference. What matters most is frequency and right-of-way improvements. The frequency of the 7 is basically the same as a typical RapidRide bus. It was 7.5 minutes midday for a while but cut back with the driver shortage. Now it is 10 (about average for RapidRide).”
The 7 is lucky; it has gotten many of the RapidRide improvements without RapidRide. A few routes like the 40 are getting part of it, but I can’t think of another route that has gotten as much of it as the 7 has. So in that sense it’s not devastating if the RapidRide R project fails: the 7 is still the best non-RapidRide route in Metro’s network. But we might as well complete the project and make it fully RapidRide, because it is the 7 and the route on Rainier.
I agree with Ross. While the RapidRide stations are definitely a pleasant amenity, having the bus run more frequently and more reliably is far more important than having a “station” from which to board it and to which to alight from it.
“one huge mega project (Sound Transit) sucked up billions that could have been spent in ways that would have had a much bigger positive impact. New libraries, community centers, rec centers, public housing?”
It’s not that black and white or zero-sum. If ST3 hadn’t occurred, it doesn’t mean those others would happen. They’re being held back more by political will than by ST3. You say people won’t vote for them because ST3 was so expensive and took all their money, but other voters don’t think that way. They have money for some other things, but they won’t vote for them for other reasons. Or increasingly, they will vote for them but the politicians block it from getting on the ballot. That’s what happened to a larger Seattle TBD renewal, alternatives to ST3 projects, more SDOT investment in transit corridors (and less in car infrastructure), etc. Maybe even a Metro Connects levy, although the last one failed so we don’t know whether one will pass now. But voters haven’t gotten a change to weigh in because the county has delayed putting it on the ballot for ten years now with no end in sight.
Rather than your “new libraries, community centers, rec centers, public housing, etc”, I’d prioritize local transit frequency, a wider variety of housing solutions, pedestrian improvements (whatever all that means), downtown revitalization, and a discussion about what else. Seattle has invested in libraries: a recent levy renovated all of them, and some hour-span cutbacks have been restored. I don’t know that Seattle has a particular need for more libraries, community centers, and rec centers. It probably needs a few here or there, but not enough to be the #1 priority.
Mike Orr,
That’s your political wish list, and I respect that, but other people in the City see it very differently. If put as a choice to the voters…. I doubt a subway to West Seattle would beat out billions more spent on low income housing. I mean “the will of people” for Sound Transit was a single vote in 2016? And that vote is controlling way, way behind projects that may be built in 2045? Or even later?
Because I’m sure that if voters had a say in matter…. Sound Transit would be toast and Seattle would shift the money to better transit service (bus and existing light rail) and/or low income housing. If “The Urbanist” had any vision, they’d have a guest op-ed about having another “ST4” vote to wrap up all the outstanding ST “in progress”projects, cancel the ones that don’t really need to be built and use ST tax district funds pay down existing bonds and funding the local transit companies.
I believe most all Blue Cities will go bankrupt or have major financial restructuring in the next 10 years because the tax base can’t pay for outstanding commitments.
I believe most all Blue Cities will go bankrupt or have major financial restructuring in the next 10 years because the tax base can’t pay for outstanding commitments.
First of all, what cities aren’t blue? Maybe suburban cities but those seem like they are far more likely to face financial problems than areas that are more dense. Density equals resiliency.
> Seattle would shift the money to better transit service (bus and existing light rail) and/or low income housing
Another incredibly ignorant take. At basically every opportunity over the past 10 years, Seattle voters have routinely voted for more taxes to do BOTH. No one is interested in horse-trading taxes between transit and housing.
Why is it that the with loudmouths who don’t even live or work in Seattle think they know the most about what Seattle wants or needs?
The issue is what services a city should provide. Then, how much does that cost? Then, can we afford it? If not, what can we do so that we can afford it? if we can’t do that, what steps can we take to make progress toward it, even if we can’t do it now? You don’t just dismiss basic or normal things because you don’t have the money right now: you take steps to make them possible eventually, and you show the public you’re being serious about taking steps. The issue of whether they’re basic or normal things comes in the first step: it’s not something you decide based on a current budget limitation or current shortfall.
So the most important arguments are whether Seattle should have comprehensive frequent transit almost everywhere (15 minute minimum all day/evening every day), whether various rail projects would significantly improve mobility over bus counterparts, whether West Seattle Link in particular is important, and if so, how big it needs to be to do its job. These are the kinds of transit-related things we should most be debating, the city electeds should most be debating, and the elected should show they’re taking the needs seriously and doing what they can to plan and fund them. If they have to be distracted sometimes by a significant budget shortfall, they should address it but not neglect the more critical and long-term issues.
As to what a city should be doing or should provide, the Scandinavian countries give a pretty good model and example.
“I believe most all Blue Cities will go bankrupt or have major financial restructuring in the next 10 years because the tax base can’t pay for outstanding commitments.”
Rural areas are in an even worse situation. In some of them their last hospital and pharmacy is closing, they don’t have supermarkets or banks, they don’t have jobs, much less high-paying ones, they’re run by people who don’t care about meeting their residents’ needs or are trying to block them from voting (mostly at the state level), they have more violent deaths and drug addiction and suicides per capita, and they don’t have the resources to provide normal things that are available in cities.
Exurban areas at the edge of the urbanized area or not near a major city (“blue city”) are stuck in a resource pyramid scheme where the public supposedly demands a car-dependent environment and large houses and yards that are expensive to serve with utilities, maintenance, and policing. They’re using housing sprawl growth and big-box growth to pay for current maintenance. That doesn’t scale and won’t work forever.
“I believe most all Blue Cities will go bankrupt or have major financial restructuring in the next 10 years because the tax base can’t pay for outstanding commitments.”
I’ll take that bet – how much do you want to wager?
We can create a list of “blue cities”… and then what do you mean by “most”? 51%? 65%? 90%?
Also what is “major financial restructuring”? Nice term without any context.
We can easily measure bankruptcy.. and if that’s the bet, you’ll lose every day of the week and twice on Sunday because “most” “blue cities” are not going to go bankrupt in the next 10 years.
Just because you think something doesn’t make it true. Facts matter.
“First of all, what cities aren’t blue? Maybe suburban cities”
All American cities are more liberal than their surrounding suburbs, exurbs, and rural areas. It’s relative: Austin and Dallas aren’t as liberal as San Francisco, but all the large Texas cities would probably be solidly blue if gerrymandering and voter suppression didn’t prevent it.
Guess whose taxes fund the federal government, retirees/disabled/low-income subsidies in rural/southern areas, and a minimum baseline of investment throughout the country? That’s right, blue states with large cities.
all the large Texas cities would probably be solidly blue if gerrymandering and voter suppression didn’t prevent it.
A lot of the gerrymandering is based on having the city go solidly Democratic while the suburbs can go slightly to Republican. But yeah, the big cities in Texas are blue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_Texas#/media/File:Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_2024.svg. Voter suppression makes them a little less blue than otherwise.
Matt,
Let me break it down for you…. here’s the list of things that blue cities are up against. It’s a mix of bad financial planning, a GOP controlled Federal Government and a downturn in the National economy.
1. Unfunded public pension liabilities
2. General buget deficits
3. underfunded public education
4. General flight of corporations to more tax friendly environments
5. Less money from the Federal Government
Seattle has 4 out of the 5…. I doubt it goes broke, but the City certainly has a different economic reality than just a few years ago. Chicago (and the State of Illinois) have all 5 with public pension liabilities threatening to bankrupt the City (and maybe even the whole State). Places like Cleveland and St. Louis haven’t thrived in the booming economy of the last 20 years. Now that the storm clouds are forming, what’s the plan?
Some of is a culture of deficit… it doesn’t matter how much a City like L.A. collects in taxes, the City is just in a dire place financially. Watch the Seattle King 5 news… homeless service providers, public education officials, Even SDOT…. all have cried for more money on channel 5 news in past couple months…. in a booming economy. What happens when the economy turns south?
You might see me as some Rightwing crank, but I’m not. Let’s talk about the next mayor of Seattle, Katie Wilson. I want to see a new mayor get a shot to lead the city without being burdened by a mountain of debt and past under funded mandates passed on by the last irresponsible administration. Mark my words… Katie will not be very successful. Not because Ms. Wilson isn’t a capable person, but because Seattle’s institutional malfunction.
“here’s the list of things that blue cities are up against”
Those don’t sound as dire as the situation in may rural areas I described. Even if the city has to make big cuts, it’s unlikely to lose all its transit, jobs, hospitals, pharmacies, or supermarkets. And no matter what goes, it will still be easier to walk to things than in most of the US or King County, and a more pleasant neighborhood environment for pedestrians, and less dependency on having to pay for a car and gas.
“General flight of corporations to more tax friendly environments”
The ones who go first are the same ones who want tax breaks but don’t want to pay their share of taxes or treat their employees fairly. And their CEOs are still thrilled Washington doesn’t have an income tax, and their total taxes are a third less than in other liberal states.
“homeless service providers, public education officials, Even SDOT…. all have cried for more money”
Homeless providers and public education haven’t had sufficient resources since 2000 and even before. So most of it isn’t new.
What is SDOT crying for? It just got a big transportation levy passed. I thought it was focused on working on those projects.
“What happens when the economy turns south?”
The same thing that happened in the 2008 and 2000 recessions.
The state typically handles the pensions as well as education. I know a little bit about that since my dad used to be an actuary (and handled CalSTRS). If a company moves to a more tax-friendly city then that city will raise less money. Cities typically don’t run deficits (not counting unfunded liabilities). The federal government (and the state) can cut off cities but that can happen anywhere. Cities tend to raise more money for the federal government than they spend. I don’t mean to imply that all cities are in great shape. But you are far more likely to have trouble in a sprawling suburban area then a more urban city. Think Ferguson, not Saint Louis. To be fair, maybe Saint Louis will struggle too (it sprawls as well). But if cities like Saint Louis are struggling then it probably means the whole thing is collapsing. A suburb isn’t going to be saved (quite the contrary).
That doesn’t mean cities don’t have problems. Chicago has had issues with mismanagement. They also have big issues with their police and lawsuits (and pensions). It might behoove a city like Chicago to make the police department separate. That way the police department can go bankrupt on its own (and most likely be bailed out by the state). Defunding the police might just happen on its own.
But by saying “Blue Cities” you implied the more urban areas are in more trouble. It is the opposite. This isn’t the 1970s (even if our President thinks it is). New York is in great shape. So is San Fransisco and Boston. It is sprawling cities like San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo that are more likely to declare bankruptcy (actually they already did during the Great Recession).
“Even if the city has to make big cuts, it’s unlikely to lose all its transit, jobs, hospitals, pharmacies, or supermarkets.”
And no matter what goes, it will still be easier to walk to things than in most of the US or King County, and a more pleasant neighborhood environment for pedestrians, and less dependency on having to pay for a car and gas.
“Cleveland and St. Louis haven’t thrived in the booming economy of the last 20 years”
Cleveland and St Louis are still alive, have some jobs, and some people who like living there and are moving to there. I haven’t been to Cleveland, but it’s reputed to have affordable housing (you told us that) and a more intact street grid and infrastructure that Rust Belt cities have but Sunbelt cities mostly don’t. And it got a BRT line in 2008, which if I remember is high quality. Disadvantages include cold winters and higher humidity than here.
Buried at the very end of this summary of a Capital Hill candidate forum yesterday:
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2025/10/12-things-chs-heard-at-the-capitol-hill-community-council-first-hill-improvement-association-mayoral-debate/
“ G Line changes? Transit advocates may have been tired by the end of the night so there were no audible gasps in the audience but Harrell made a surprising statement or two about the future the RapidRide G line. The mayor said he wants to answer concerns from neighborhood businesses and revisit decisions that changed some lanes and eliminated left hand turn lanes around the year-old RapidRide line on Madison between the waterfront and Madison Valley across First Hill and Capitol Hill to “help small businesses recover” and clear “some bumps along the way” of the bus rapid transit line.”
Sounds like Bruce was behind the Union bus lane incident and isn’t done tinkering on Madison.
Better get Harrell out before he does that. He also influenced the Comprehensive Plan decision to scale back some of the proposed urban village expansions and the minimum zoning outside villages. So he’s already done damage on housing and he wants to do more of it in the First Hill transit corridors.
It appears that the King County Metro’s real-time GTFS feed have been down since Monday.
My Pantograph App showed me the bus that didn’t exist ran by my sight. Then the next day all the real-time data was completely off from the App and Google.
And Route 40 Improvement project took away the arrival board at NW Market & Ballard Ave in Ballard, but they never put one back.
That makes it not so much of improvement…
The route 40 project isn’t finished yet.
There was an alert Tuesday at 7am about arrival and tracking information not being available due to “intermittent technical issues”. Similar alerts happen every few weeks, so I didn’t pay much attention to it.
It’s fixed as of yesterday evening, but there are issues with it still. The updates are delayed by 3-4 minutes at times.
Re. BRT versus Streetcars and light rail.
– LRT/Streetcars running in mixed traffic without traffic priority will always be slow and suck, especially if they run at poor frequency (e.g., Seattle’s streetcars).
– BRT running frequently in a dedicated (or mostly dedicated) corridor with rail transit-like priority will be very effective, especially over shorter distances where top speed is not as critical (e.g., RapidRide G).
The devil is in the details. If they say “build BRT instead of light rail” and what we get is any RapidRide that is not the letter G, you can see how people might look down on “BRT” and clamor for rail. If they’re willing to build BRT instead of light rail, show me that they are also willing to dedicate a proper right of way (which of course costs more $$$ in a large city!), actually prioritize the busses over car traffic, and run them at the frequency of a proper Metro system. And tell me how much *that* would cost compared with light rail.
Yes, the devil is in the details. Basically mode is irrelevant when it comes to speed and frequency. The main advantage of rail is capacity. You can run it less often without worrying about crowding. This is rarely an issue. Most of the time we want to see buses run more often, not less. But there are places where buses run every couple minutes and it costs a fortune — running a streetcar every five minutes would be better for the agency. It might not be better for riders along that corridor but system wide it would be better.
In terms of cost and flexibility, buses have the advantage. Right-of-way is not absolute. Most systems are a mix. They run in their own lane for a while and then run in mixed traffic. This is true with the RapidRide G as well as the streetcars. But with buses it is much easier to make iterative changes. For example consider the little island bus stop and bus lane on Denny. This speeds up the Metro 8 considerably. This would have been very expensive to implement if there were tracks*. This also explains why so little has been done along Broadway for the buses and streetcar. It is much trickier because of rail. The same is true with RapidRide J and the streetcar. It make sense for the streetcar to take advantage of the work being done for the J Line. Both should run in the same transit lanes like they do along Westlake. But doing that would require moving the streetcar tracks. They actually considered that but it was going to cost a fortune.
Streetcars are just a lot more expensive to build in the first place and extremely expensive to modify. You have to make sure the routing makes sense (in our case it doesn’t) and be confident that the right-of-way situation is good for now and can easily be improved in the future. You also have to be sure you have enough ridership to justify the extra capacity but not enough to justify a subway line (or you already have one like Paris).
*Obviously it makes sense to add BAT lanes on all of Denny. But for now this saves riders quite a bit of time. When they do add BAT lanes on Denny the bus will be able to take advantage of that section.
“Metro Scales Back Scope of RapidRide K, R Lines”
Funny thing is Rainier corridor where 7 runs probably has more transit priority treatments than half of the RapidRide routes up and running today.
As for K Line, running that line at 10-minute headway is already a huge step forward for eastside.
That’s a good point about RapidRideR. That perhaps is a factor in the budget reduction.
The project has a number of elements that don’t seem fully finalized, like how and where to terminate the line in Rainier Beach and what to do about the occasional Prentice St runs. Plus the I-90 final interchange changes have not been selected. The Mt Baker area circulation changes have also varied over time. Changing the north end to use Boren or Broadway rather than Jackson also gets occasionally debated. The opening of Judkins Park Link could create interest in making other route changes on how best to serve the station. As an ETB, these changes involve overhead wire while other RapidRide projects have not.
That said, it does feel unnecessarily delayed again. There’s only so much time to allow for making some final choices and the project concept has been around for a long time. It may be that tabling choices and cutting funding is more of an avoidance tactic (and using funds for other things) more than it’s the opposite at this point.
Yeah, I think there are major issues with changing the 7. It is an extremely popular route. Work on converting to RapidRide stalled in part because of push-back over the pairing of the 7 and 49. Are they still paired at night?
But there are also issues with the Prentice loop. I support the change in the 7 and wouldn’t complain about it being RapidRide but I think it has to be done as part of a larger restructure. Not necessarily a really big one, but I don’t think you can change the route in isolation.
@Ross.. The 7 & 49 are no longer paired together (I asked a driver at night the same question when I was getting off the 49). It has been a couple years now.
Thanks. That’s what I thought. Bizarre that they just ended it (even though that was a major point of contention for the proposed RapidRide R).
@Al S… an easy solution for the Prentice runs is to simply eliminate it. It’s in a lower density area and the walkshed to 106 on Renton Ave and Rainier Beach isn’t that bad. Did this blog every do a ridership post on the 7? I haven’t been on the Prentice loop in nearly 20 years but it was dead then and I’m gonna assume not much as changed.
Sounds like 7/49 don’t pair anymore because 49 is dieselized until 2030 due to construction of Roanoke Lid.
Not sure what’s the plan after that. By the time Roanoke Lid is finished, things could be a lot different. That include status of R Line, Metro’s interest of running trolleybus and, timeline of its electrification plan.
“an easy solution for the Prentice runs is to simply eliminate it. “
That’s not how Metro works. There is a process to drop tail like that. It requires meetings and feedback. A staffer just can’t drop it.
The RapidRide R project terminates at Rainier Beach station and doesn’t serve the Prentice tail. Metro’s plans since Metro Connects 2016 either have no service in the tail or backfill it with another route. The current Metro Connects 2050 vision has no service in the tail. Instead there’s a 106-like route west of it and a shoreline route north and east of it. I’ve looked in online maps to see if the walking distance to those routes is short enough and flat enough, and it appears to be.
Route 1075 (Frequent) follows the 106+105 from Rainier Beach station to the northeastern Renton Highlands.
Route 3999 (Local) goes from Rainier Beach station following the shoreline to downtown Renton, then to far eastern Renton (Lake Kathleen). The shoreline part restores a former route 107 corridor that was deleted in the 2000s. (Maybe when Link started, maybe in a recession cut.)
To Al’s point about process, the process for making a final decision on the Prentice tail will be the RapidRide R restructure, which is normally in the year before a line opens.
Yes, Metro could just eliminate it but I really doubt they will. It is not just the section on Prentice. Every 7 does a loop that involves going south of Henderson — for example this bus stop here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XS61s32e1XDh3aAp7. A lot of riders using that stop came from farther away (e. g. the apartment buildings on Rainier Avenue to the southeast). It is highly likely they backfill service there. This is not like the 120 to H which I believe was a simple one-to-one replacement. It is quite likely this will require changing other bus routes. In other words, a restructure.
@Ross… totally understand that there people coming SE of Rainier Beach. But I highly doubt it’s the entire length of the Prentice loop. I used to visit an old gf who lived on Bangor St. The 7 was closer to her but I never took it because the 106 was more frequent and faster. If the Prentice loop were axed, the only losers would be riders who live in low density areas between Roxbury and Ryan St that don’t want to/can’t walk uphill to Renton Ave to catch the 106. Metro need not to replace this service.
But I highly doubt it’s the entire length of the Prentice loop.
No, it isn’t. That is my point. People keep mentioning the “Prentice Loop” like it is a huge issue. It isn’t. It is the other loop (that doesn’t have a name). Partly it is confusing because the streets turn in there. But it is the Rainier Avenue/Seward Park/Henderson Loop. There are about 750 who board the bus there (south of where the future RapidRide R will turn). In contrast there are only about 10 riders who board the Prentice Loop. Any change that could hurt 750 riders is not a trivial issue.
There’s a slow order for northbound trains leaving Westlake station- again. Does anybody know the reason why? It has been in effect for roughly two weeks.
I was also wondering about this – trains have been leaving Westlake very slow consistently. Are there more damaged overhead lines like we had around University of Washington Station a while back?
Link southbound trains disrupted this morning (Friday)… again. The weekly “switch, maintenance, power, whatever” issue. Always at rush hour.
Is the 2 Line testing still happening? What is going on and when will it open? We’ve been waiting long enough.
And… The light rail is broken again. This is becoming an embarrassment at this point. It’s not a reliable way to commute anymore. When driving is more reliable, there is no excuse.
2 Line is running systems integration testing. Opening appears to be on track for early next year, but obviously no date has been picked yet.
Sound Transit just announced monthly extensions of the overnight maintenance window to improve reliability, with the first set of early closures finishing tonight.
The Federal Way extension is opening in 6 weeks, and ST is keeping basically all of the express buses from South King County and beyond to Downtown, so if freeway traffic is more reliable, you can still take the bus.
Then I could drive if the freeway is faster, unless parking is a challenge. Why aren’t we building infrastructure to get the buses fast and skip traffic?
When I’ve been on the freeways I’ve not seen much Link testing going on with Federal Way nor 2 Line. I particularly thought Federal Way would be in full simulation by now.
At this point, I’m at least half-hoping the 2 Line doesn’t open anytime soon, because this way we have a reliable 550 rather than unreliable Link.
I feel sorry for North Seattleites whose 41 has been cancelled.
Link would be much faster and probably more reliable than 550…. If it was done right.
Suggestion for the Blog: create a Ridership section that contains ridership data and all of the Ridership Patterns articles.
There was an update on federal way and 2 line testing. Oh, and the st board voted to raise property taxes. Good money thrown after bad.
ST has the authority to raise its flat levy a certain percentage each year, but has to vote to do it. It’s not going to defund itself by not raising the levy rate to match inflation.
Just sent an hour ago: “Testing for the 1 Line extension to Federal Way is underway. During testing, trains will continue south past Angle Lake Station. Passengers must deboard at Angle Lake. Service to Federal Way begins on Dec. 6.”
“Federal Way Link Extension testing for today [Saturday], Oct. 25, has been canceled. 1 Line trains will not be continuing past Angle Lake Station. Testing will resume at the start of service on Sunday, Oct. 26.”
“the st board voted to raise property taxes”
What did the board do? How can it raise property taxes without a public vote? Do you mean it’s exercising more of the tax rate authorized in ST3? I thought it was already collecting the full authorized rate.
Sound Transit ridership data has been published for the last 2 months, and they have also corrected the errors in the July data.
Roughly 120,000 daily boardings on just the 1-Link alone. 126,500 alone just in July during the Revive I-5 mess. All good news.
Ridership jumped about 20,000 riders per day as soon as LLE opened. FWLE is only about 6 weeks out, and will also be highly impactful.
Wish I knew exactly how many days until FWLE opens, but oh well.
I’m sorry, but how do you get 20K more riders. I get that the four LLE stations pull 9K boardings, but Northgate dropped 4K boardings at the same time. So that’s a net increase of 5K boardings or 10K total ridership (boardings and equal number of station exits) attribuable to Lynnwood Link.
And it’s taken a year to build up to that total for the 4 new stations rather than “as soon as” Lynnwood Link opened.
Of course other growth has happened along 1 Line that doesn’t involve Lynnwood Link. The other growth appears due to increased SeaTac use and more trips that connect within Seattle. How about giving some credit to Seattle residents and visitors generating Link ridership growth?
I’m sorry, but how do you get 20K more riders.
Overall ridership increased about 20K. But you are correct Al, Lynnwood Link does not explain all of that increase — or even most of it. Northgate ridership took a big drop when Lynnwood Link was added and it hasn’t recovered. The five station should be counted together. The numbers vary quite a bit month by month so it isn’t easy getting a good read on them. Northgate opened during the pandemic, so you would expect the numbers to be going up and they generally have been. In April of 2023, Northgate Station got over 10,000 for the first time. It did that again a couple times in the next couple months. Then it dipped a bit in the fall and winter before picking up again in April of 2024 (several months before Lynnwood Link opened). In general it looks like it has led to an increase of about 4,000 riders at those stations. Assuming those all lead to round trips (involving other stations) that works out to about an increase of 8,000.
Most of the increase has nothing to do with Lynnwood Link. It is just a general increase in Link ridership will also corresponds to a general increase in post-pandemic ridership both here and around the country. There are also more people in the region (again, as a result of the pandemic waning). But it is worth noting that overall transit ridership is nowhere near what it was before the pandemic. This despite the major improvement in Link infrastructure as it finally served the U-District, Roosevelt, Northgate and places to the north. Bus ridership is way down. Despite many of these routes being replaced by Link, the combination of Link + Metro ridership is still way down.
Lynnwood Link has only been open two months? It feels like longer. I’ve been to the Aurora Village Costco two or three times now and am going again today. All these openings just blur into a continuous timeline and each one happened “sometime”.
Lynnwood Link has only been open two months?
We should have a clock that shows how long it has been open :)
Anyway, it has been 14 months (and I had to look it up). Lynnwood Link opened in August 30, 2024.
Wish I knew exactly how many days until FWLE opens, but oh well.
Why don’t you look at the countdown clock? You know, the one someone built just for you?
I’m glad ST updated the data on the dashboard. There are still some areas where it is broken though. If you select “Line 2” it only shows data up to July. However if you clear that selection and instead select all of the East Side stations it will give you data up through September. Ridership is holding steady at about 10,000 a day. I think the decision to open the East Side “starter line” early was clearly a good one. Ridership is being driven mostly by downtown Bellevue and Redmond. South Bellevue and Redmond Tech are secondary stations and considerably ahead of the rest of them. South Bellevue is probably getting its riders from transfers from the 550 while Redmond Tech has Microsoft workers as well as some density in the neighborhood. Most of the other stations are doing well (e. g. Spring District has almost 10,000 riders). Wilburton is the only one that seems lower than I expected (with only about 350).
“Ridership is being driven mostly by downtown Bellevue and Redmond.”
Urbanism strikes again. These are the only stations that have so many things to walk to.
Yeah, East Link is a classic urban line even though it in the suburbs. Redmond and Bellevue have solid urban cores. Other places like the Spring District feed off of it. It is really the strongest argument for East Link. It isn’t just getting people from the suburbs to their jobs in Seattle or even getting people from Seattle to their jobs in Downtown Bellevue and Microsoft. If it was then the express buses would be adequate if not better (which is why they are keeping some of them). No, it is for the combination of trips that people can take — many of which are faster than driving.
Bellevue is also looking to add 35,000 new housing units along the light rail corridor as well, with especially intense zoning around wilburton. It’s not perfect, but EarthLink will be very successful going forward if development reaches its full potential.
Given the extended delay, the 2 Line Eastside opening was a good, strategic move — especially after the Downtown Redmond Extension. It also has had benefit as an extended testing of tracks, power and stations before demand gets too heavy.
The resulting ridership is interesting because it’s rather balanced across the line currently. It would be a good case study of what suburban light rail land use and corridor requirements work best.
It would be interesting to see the data by time of day. A survey of why people ride would also be interesting. Many times, the public expects light rail to act mainly as a commuter system — yet I think it’s really obvious that a line should be used for a variety of reasons rather than just commuting. It might be revealing for ST to research this before the full 2 Line opens as the future ridership will almost certainly be dominated by cross-lake trips.
I wonder what effect the flat fare had. Did anyone actually switch from riding the train to local buses because of it? That may be impossible to parse out.
But there should be good data on the suddenly-more-useful day passes. Did day passes become much more of a thing in the past year?
One of the anomalies we have to look forward to is when SeaTac Airport Station eclipses Westlake’s monthly ridership after Federal Way Link opens. It will be a short eclipse, as Westlake will get a huge boost when the Cross-Lake connection opens.
It’s not discussed by ST much, but the Line 1+2 combined frequency at 4-5 minutes all day and evening will be awesome! That’s sure to draw more riders all by itself.
The ridership during final testing but before the cross-lake opening will be a case study about if or how much higher frequency adds riders.
I’m thinking all of the stations in the DSTT and up to Lynnwood will all get a ridership bump next year from both better frequency as well as direct access to Bellevue and Redmond from Seattle.
On the other hand, SeaTac Airport did get an increase from the Lynnwood Link opening. Airport trips at just $3 are very enticing when a rider can go 20 miles. Among visitors flying into SeaTac, word seems to get around more and more that Link is increasingly preferred over other methods. When I chat with visitors on the plane, they are often aware that it’s a good option and are beginning to use it. Whether Eastside flyers shift to Link remains to be seen but I could see a modest bump in SeaTac Link boardings when it opens (but likely not like those in the DSTT).
It’s not discussed by ST much, but the Line 1+2 combined frequency at 4-5 minutes all day and evening will be awesome! That’s sure to draw more riders all by itself.
I agree.
I also think that Federal Way Link will lead to an increase in ridership on Link to the airport. There are quite a few people who work at the airport and live to the south. I’m sure many of them take the RapidRide A Line. They will switch to using Link. Some of the people who use Link will alter their behavior as well. This may result in a large decrease in Angle Lake trips as people get dropped off or park at stations to the south.
“This may result in a large decrease in Angle Lake trips as people get dropped off or park at stations to the south.”
Yes I’m also expecting a significant drop in Angle lake boardings when the three Federal Way Link stations open.
I do have a friend who lives on a suburban street near Downtown Des Moines that uses Angle Lake garage when riding Link. He’s looking forward to getting freer parking spaces as some of those riders park at a new station. The station will almost certainly see a decrease in total boardings — but there are those that haven’t been able to find parking at Angle Lake today that may take those vacated spots starting in December.
Angle Lake gets about 6K boardings on an average weekday (higher or lower depending on the month). I’m thinking that it will drop to 3K as riders start using stations further south. My guess? I doubt it will drop to below 2K or exceed 4K after the opening once it goes from being an end station to an intermediate one.
The delayed 2 Line opening is unacceptable. We’ve been waiting long enough. Why do we have to wait until April 26?? If they push it out again, I don’t know what to say. They need to replace Sound Transit.
I took Link back from a plane trip last night at about 8 pm. Some observations:
1. There seems to be a huge realtime sign problem. I think it’s a result of the Federal Way simulation start. Anyway, the signs were showing trains not arriving for 20 minutes or more. Then suddenly the signs announced arrival of a train in 1 minute! So, my wait was only about 7-8 minutes. ST needs to broadcast announcements that trains are arriving more frequently than the signs show. It’s particularly distressing for visitors. Maybe this problem will go away when trains permanently leave from Federal Way in early December.
2. Visitors are often confused about which direction gets them into Seattle. I think ST probably needs to do what BART does (with “San Francisco”), and add “Seattle” or “Downtown Seattle” to the electronic signs in addition to the end station. I know that the diagrams explain things, but visitors need primary reassurance. A visitor last night said to me “I don’t know where these destinations are! Which train gets me to Downtown Seattle?” An alternative could be a special visitor destination summary sign visible to all that arriving at or standing on the platform at this station.
3. In the winds last night, the SeaTac station felt pretty brutally chilly. The SeaTac station platforms badly need better wind protection. Being up in the air with no buildings or trees or hills absorbing upstream winds, the platforms seem to be more exposed in ways that other surface or aerial station platforms aren’t. The current glass panels on the far side of the tracks seem to offer very little if any buffering . The Port needs to work with ST to make the “gateway to Seattle” platforms less hostile to use in chilly, windy, damp weather. It made waiting 7-8 minutes feel like 20!