Dangerous By Design: Potential Improvements for MLK Way

71 Replies to “Dangerous By Design: Potential Improvements for MLK Way”

1. I have learned that in the Netherlands they will experiment and study different road configurations for safety before they implement a permanent solution. Perhaps a cost effective way to find the best solution for MLK and to get public buy in is to try the different road configurations mentioned by this post using temporary barriers to reduce lanes and/or experiment with cycle tracks or parking.

   1. You don’t even have to go overseas. In Boston, MassDOT successfully piloted a protected bike lane on Harvard Bridge: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2022/10/24/massdot-calls-harvard-bridge-road-diet-extremely-effective-says-changes-will-become-permanent-this-fall.

      Greg Spotts made a lot of news when he first started by ordering SDOT to put at least a mile of cones down 1st Ave S for a temporary bike lane during a closure of the Spokane Street Bridge: https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2023/01/05/sdots-emergency-bike-lanes-are-glorious/. Of course, this was never followed up on and Spotts was never able to pull off such a stunt again. I figure he probably pissed off the freight lobby quite a bit and had his hand slapped but he very much proved Seattle can do this pilot thing if we want to. As Michael says, it’s a matter of political will.

   2. “like here’s a nyc subway example for 12 miles. it takes 50 minutes to travel”

      Yeah and it takes an hour to drive up 15 miles on I-405 from Renton to Bellevue *on the worst days of traffic*

      You understand the problem? People don’t take transit because it’s inefficient, even in busy downtowns like Seattle and Bellevue.

      Some of our rides are so inefficient it does not make any sense. For example the 556 bus takes over an hour to go from UW to Issaquah. Why? It should only be a 30-40 min ride. Fortunately, The 2 Line will achieve that once it’s open, but why does only the East Side get the pleasure of faster trips into Seattle? Why is South Kings only option a more expensive Sounder (that really isn’t that fast it’s hyped up to be) followed by annoying transfers, or a slow 1 Line? Why does the 1 Line to Lynnwood get a significantly faster ride into Seattle even though its a longer distance than Tukwila and SeaTac?

      Also you realize potential airport/tourist ridership is enough to justify an *elevated* bypass line? Imagine how many Ubers and rental cars would be taken off the roads there.

      1. > “like here’s a nyc subway example for 12 miles. it takes 50 minutes to travel”

         > Yeah and it takes an hour to drive up 15 miles on I-405 from Renton to Bellevue *on the worst days of traffic*

         You understand the problem? People don’t take transit because it’s inefficient, even in busy downtowns like Seattle and Bellevue.

         I already responded:

         “The problem is that many american cities have literally tried what you guys desire.

         Nashville music city star, DART train, denver RTD etc… these all focused on prioritizing “fast” trains into downtowns and cheap route that is close to nothing just freeways and freight tracks. And they all ended up with relatively low ridership with their incredibly low density near the stations.”

         > Why does the 1 Line to Lynnwood get a significantly faster ride into Seattle even though its a longer distance than Tukwila and SeaTac?

         it isn’t really “significantly” faster

         CID to lynnwood is around 36 minutes and around 15 miles.

         CID to seatac is around 32 minutes and around 11 miles.
         CID to angle lake is around 38 minutes and around 13 miles.

         CID to federal way is around 20 miles. it isn’t really shocking it will take 33% more time to travel as it is literally 33% farther. CID to federal way will take around 48 minutes.

         20 miles / 15 miles = 1.3333
         48 minutes / 1.333 ~= 36 minutes.

      2. Those examples failed because people aren’t accustomed to taking the bus.

         A good bus network connecting to a faster train line will be far more convincing and serve a lot more people.

         1. Local light rail lines, with connections to freeway stations
         2. Bypass trains and express buses along freeway stations. Buses use overhead lines to charge their battery on dedicated separates lanes. Trains can be an end state goal if too expensive.
         3. Express buses serving adjacent neighborhoods with limited stops
         4. Local buses and DART with several stops serving the express bus as quickly as possible
         5. Peak hour buses that merge some of these trips and fewer stops where demand exists

         Yes, it’s a bit busy and requires a lot of transfers but if timed right, you get a really good system.

      3. Rainier Valley is nowhere near dense enough to justify a light rail stop. They have improved it but it still fails to serve most people.

         And the ridership compared to downtown, airport, UW etc. shows that. Whenever I take Link that is always the most unused stop.

      4. Basic common sense transit design…

         1. If high density, use a light rail / subway.

         2. If low density but along a direct corridor, use a high speed option.

         3. If low density but not along a direct corridor, use a bus.

      5. And to be fair you cherry picked CID since that’s after slugging through all the stops in Downtown for Lynnwood, but before Angle Lake hits that portion. And not to mention the Federal Way segment is a faster express portion as well.

         Also you founded down Lynnwood miles. It’s more than 15.

         Considering somewhere in the middle like Symphony, Lynnwood is definitely faster. And it could be faster… It’s an elevated rail that runs randomly slow at some portions around Shoreline. I’ve rode it and it’s far more comfortable than the ride to SeaTac (a comparable distance to Lynnwood)

      6. Those examples failed because people aren’t accustomed to taking the bus.

         Wait, what? People can’t figure out how to ride the bus? That is absurd. Obviously in Tacoma they figured it out — more people ride the 590 than the Sounder (both only run during peak). These are people who are taking the bus despite the alternative being a very comfortable, big commuter train (not a crowded Link train).

         Rainier Valley is nowhere near dense enough to justify a light rail stop. They have improved it but it still fails to serve most people.

         Nonsense. The Rainier Valley segment (including Beacon Hill) gets about 13,000 riders. TIBS, SeaTac and Angle Lake get about 21,000. So obviously the latter gets more. But it is also quite likely that many of the riders in Rainier Valley are headed to SeaTac. Back when ST showed the directional stop data, about 25% of the riders from Rainier Beach were headed south. This is consistent with the more recent data that we gathered and put together (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/08/25/ridership-patterns-for-link-1-line/). Round the numbers a bit and you get something like this:

         10,000 riders — Rainier Beach to Beacon Hill and places north
         3,000 riders — Beacon Hill/Rainier Beach to places south
         2,000 riders — TIBS to Angle Lake
         16,000 riders — Angle Lake/TIBS to places north (not including Rainier Valley)

         So if they had built a bypass instead of serving Beacon Hill/Rainier Beach they would have made the trip a little bit faster for about 16,000 riders and a lot slower for about 13,000. That would have been a really bad idea. To be clear, I’m really sorry they built the Rainier Valley line the way they did. It should be on Rainier Avenue (and have more stops). But Rainier Valley most certainly gets enough riders to justify stops.

      7. @south king

         > And to be fair you cherry picked CID since that’s after slugging through all the stops in Downtown for Lynnwood

         It’s what sound transit is using as the midpoint. Plus the slowness from Westlake to cid is because of more stations. If you want to argue go skipping pioneer square, symphony square, sodo etc…. That’s fine but that doesn’t really have to do with rainier valley.

         > Also you founded down Lynnwood miles. It’s more than 15.

         I checked Google Maps as per crow flies it is almost exactly 15 miles. If you are going by track mileage sure it is longer but then so is the route to federal trackage also longer.

         All the other lynnwood link stations besides Lynnwood mountlake terrace, north and south shoreline stations get less ridership than the rainier valley stations

         > 1. If high density, use a light rail / subway.
         > 2. If low density but along a direct corridor, use a high speed option.
         > 3. If low density but not along a direct corridor, use a bus.

         I mean if we were to follow your metric or European cities metric we just wouldn’t build out to federal way.

      8. Basic common sense transit design…

         1) If high density, use a light rail / subway.
         2) If low density but along a direct corridor, use a high speed option.
         3) If low density but not along a direct corridor, use a bus.
         

         Yes, and for number 2 that usually means a bus. The only time it would mean a train is if you have existing tracks (like with Sounder). So run the trains in the urban part of the city and you run express buses into the city. I agree, that is just common sense transit design.

      9. And why was I-405 rail ripped out and replaced with a trail? Perfect candidate for rail.

2. A second part!? Why would you spend money on building a new structure for trains to run along MLK when you can remove the segment from Mount Baker to S Boeing Access Rd and build a bypass line along South Park and Georgetown to SoDo!? I bet MLK residents are much interested in having a center running BRT in their neighborhood (likely a RapidRide from Madison Valley to Renton), and you can have the G Line extend to Madison Park. The 1 Line would go to Mount Baker (not a good place to end light rail but makes sense) instead of building a billion dollar West Seattle light rail (instead upgrading water taxi and the C Line). Also instead of building Ballard Link, upgrade the D, add infill Sounder stations in Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, and the Waterfront (and more trips obviously), and last but not least upgrade Seattle Monorail to light rail as a new elevated line along 5th Ave to Pierce (bypassing Rainier).

   1. The existing line would serve way more riders than a line through Georgetown. Not only are there lots of riders from Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley headed downtown but a lot of them are headed towards SeaTac. Why would you build a brand new line so that you could reduce ridership (and ridership per service hour)?

      1. You have a point there, I also wonder why The House of Transit wants to put frequent light rail service in those neighborhoods, it’s going to cost A LOT to build a bypass, and to create the Valley Line, if you don’t know what I’m talking about watch this video and we can discuss:
         

      2. A lot of people — most of whom don’t understand much about transit — have suggested a bypass line. They want an express. What they ignore is that the existing line is basically an express (there are literally miles between the station in Tukwila and Rainier Beach station). It is common for “fantasy transit” people to propose this. These are folks who believe that with enough political will we can have hundreds of miles of grade-separated rail lines all over the region. Seattle Subway is a great example of this. This is there “Vision Map”: https://www.seattlesubway.org/regional-map/. It is absurd both in scope and emphasis. Note that there would be three separate lines to TIBS and two separate lines to Woodinville (along with another line to UW-Bothell). At the same time it manages to skip Belltown and First Hill. I could go on but you get the idea.

         The basic problem with a bypass line is that it would cost a fortune and have very few new stops. But there are other issues. Both lines would interline south of TIBS. Both lines would interline at SoDo. Trying to get the timing right would be difficult if not impossible. Would you end the Rainier Valley line at TIBS and force riders to transfer (waiting a few minutes until the lines are in sync)? Would you double track all the way to SeaTac? That is just a lot of money for very little benefit.

         As far as Rainier Valley is concerned, it would be better if the trains were running down Rainier, not MLK. So I could see them building a new line down Rainier (with lots of stops). This would be less disruptive than building a trench (at least for existing Link riders). It would be plenty disruptive for existing riders of the Metro 7. But when complete it would be better for everyone (if done right).

         But it still wouldn’t mean an express from the distant suburbs to downtown. But rarely do cities actually build this. Some double track. Many use existing rail to build a commuter line — in fact we have such a line, called Sounder. But building a brand new commuter line is just a really bad value. That is why cities rarely build such things. They just live with the line (based on the old tracks) or they run express buses.

         I get the frustration from riders. This is a hybrid system and it shouldn’t be surprising that it is not very good at either. But the focus should be on the area that will get you most bang for your buck: the urban core. This is where you will get the most ridership. This is also where you add the most value — often for those very suburban riders. If someone in Tukwila works downtown it is highly likely they take Link or an express bus. But if they work in say, West Seattle they probably just drive. If West Seattle had a much better bus system (like the one proposed here — https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/06/07/west-seattle-by-bus-instead-of-light-rail/) then they would be more likely to take transit. The same is true for the north end. Getting from the north end to downtown (or the UW) is easy. But getting to Ballard is not. Thus a subway line from Ballard to the UW would not only make one-seat rides much better but they would improve a boat load of two-seat ones.

      3. Yeah, that’s pretty much the problem. ST3 prices are rising and what people just want is more service while being inadequate on the 54 billion dollars adjusted for the inflation system. Like I see some weird light rails such as adding rail to Aurora, an E-W South Seattle rail, and light rail to Woodinville!? What are these ideas, not to mention plenty of them are redundant, which is pretty much why I get Sound Transit ruled out extending Ballard Link to U District via Wallingford (which was redundant), not to mention it was “provisional” which is why it wasn’t approved (expensive).

      4. Ross, a bypass line would not “cost a fortune”. It doesn’t have to be the Seattle Subway Colossus with two crossings of the Duwamish Waterway and four miles of tunnel through South Park and Georgetown.

         It could be almost completely at-grade by taking the eastern lane of Airport Way south of the terminal and putting the other track in the space between the roadway and the railroad. At Albro the tracks would go on structure gaining some elevation for a couple of blocks to a level station just south of the northbound freeway on-ramp. North of the station it would gain enough extra elevation to diagonal across the BNSF/UP trackway to the base of the hill to the east. It would then descend a bit to duck under the northbound and then the southbound off-ramps from I-5. This under-crossing might have to be single-tracked, depending how much the hill can be excavated and still be stable.

         At the south edge of the Olympic Foundry an essentially unused spur diverges to the east of the BNSF main and becomes a double track spur behind the businesses on the east side of Airport Way south of the City traffic signals depot. The spur goes between the City buildings and Airport Way and then runs for four more blocks between buildings up to Spokane Street. This is a natural right of way for a two-track right-of-way carrying “the Bypass”. All of it except the last block would have to be on structure to preserve business access, adding up to roughly one and a half miles of structure, mostly two-track.

         Just south of Spokane the trackway would have to descend to near the surface, but that block is currently unoccupied anyway. After under-running the Spokane Street interchange a few feet above the surface the trackway, the structure would rise back up to cross over Airport Way and fork into two separate structures.

         The southbound branch would take the place of the little-used outer bypass loop and descend to grade as it curves around the southwest corner to reach the surface just south of the existing turnout to the innder-dispersal loop from the entrance ramp from The Spine Main. The northbound branch would require that the sidewalk along the west side of Airport Way or the trees behind it be removed essentially all the way from the driveway into the Maintenance Facility from Airport Way to Stevens Street, but I can’t imagine who might be using it. There’s a bus stop under Spokane which is closer to the driveway entrance to the MF, so I expect that operators who use the bus would use that stop instead of Stevens. So there is no loss to pedestrians in taking the sidewalk.

         From Stevens north the trees would have to be removed because the structure angle a bit west of north as it ramps down to be even with the rising entrance to The Spine northbound and merges with it.

         At the south end of the bypass there would be a burrowing junction for northbound trains that follows the existing roadway one for the eastbound BAR to northbound Airport Way road users just south and east of it and a flying junction for southbound trains.

         This can be built for a few hundred million dollars. Yes, a few hundred million, mostly for the two miles of structure.

         Now I understand that you hate the idea of bypassing Beacon Hill and the Rainier Valley to improve the regional times, but there’s no reason that service as far as the airport via the RV would not continue. There is plenty of capacity north of CID for three lines, and the RV line could be through-routed with service to and from Everett, especially if the extension north of Mariner is value-engineered in a way that makes automation impossible.

         Given the poor right-of-way options available for Tiddly-Links, assuming that Tacoma is actually built it will be grade-separated, so Tacoma to Lynnwood would be one line via Airport Way, automated. Redmond Town Center to Lynnwood would be another line, automated. The third line would be Everett to Sea-Tac via the RV, NOT automated. There might be Northgate to Sea-Tac trains at peaks as well for capacity.

         And you might have a separate fleet of higher-geared vehicles for the Tacoma to Lynnwood trains so that they can make use of the long sections of relatively straight freeway-envelope running. True, they would be a bit slower accelerating in the central section of the line, so that would have to be evaluated.

         Doing this also leaves Ballard and West Seattle with the opportunity for a different technology without worrying about clearances for high platforms and third-rail power where people might walk.

      5. That’s just great, Tom

         Having an at-grade bypass just seems like you’re just trying to not give valley residents light rail service, and instead give it to some poor South Seattle neighborhoods, like I mean Marginal Way does not need that level of service, you can also put it in a trench. Not to mention I do think the deviation to South Park is unnecessary (as proposed by The House of Transit) when you can have the train just use 99 rather than deviating to Boeing Access Rd and Marginal Way. Why hasn’t anybody considered just removing the Rainier Valley segment from Mount Baker to S Boeing Access Rd stations? It doesn’t have to be like this. Tom, I disagree. It would cost a fortune to add a bypass, and to add light rail service on International Blvd, like that’s probably even worse when you know there will be no stations along the path except at Tukwila International Boulevard, this just seems like they’re just trying to take the expensive way when they can extend the A Line and provide BRT service along that corridor. I’ll make a map soon on what if ST built a bypass (on the restructure).

      6. If it runs on the surface, how is it significantly faster than the existing light rail line? Are we building this to serve the areas along the way and if so, that seems like a lot of money for very few riders.

      7. Guess how many people don’t ride light rail because it’s faster to drive straight up on I-5.

         While you’re serving less stops with a new line, you’ll encourage more ridership by presenting a speedy alternative.

         Sounder does exist, but it doesn’t serve the airport and is more expensive. Additionally you are forced to transfer, whereas light rail serves the highest ridership stops while also skipping MLK to speed up the longer distance trip. People from South King would prefer a faster light rail up into Seattle that doesn’t drag along MLK. It is not fair that Lynnwood gets a fast ride into Seattle, but South King residents don’t.

         That doesn’t mean we should scrap the existing segment, but it should run parallel to a new bypass line.

      8. My ST4/ST5 proposal

         1A Line – Tacoma to SeaTac, Tukwila Intl, Boeing Access, Georgetown, SODO, Stadium, Intl District, … U District, then deviate to Ballard

         2 Line – Redmond to Bellevue to Seattle to Lynnwood

         3 Line – Everett , Lynnwood, Shoreline, Seattle, West Seattle

         4 Line – Issaquah to South Kirkland via Bellevue

         5 Line – SeaTac, Rainier Beach, Beacon Hill, SODO (for transfers), then to First Hill and SLU/Ballard

         6 Line – Renton, Skyway, Rainier Beach, Mount Baker, Judkins Park, Montlake, U Village, Lake City

         7 Line – SeaTac, Tukwila, Renton, South Bellevue, Bellevue, Spring District, S Kirkland, Kirkland, Bothell/Woodinville, UW Bothell, Lynnwood

      9. How many of those South King residents live within walking distance of the airport station or TIBS?

         Because even with a bypass line, unless they live close to one of those two stations, a bypass line isn’t going to save them that much time and they’ll still drive. A huge time sink is just getting to one of the stations from anywhere in South King. There’ll be a demand for intermediate stations along this bypass route, and even lines like the LA metro D line averages 30 mph.

         So, given the 13 miles between SeaTac and CID via Highway 509, a bypass would probably gain you about 5 minutes over the existing Link line.

         To really have an impact on travel times, you need something better than what Link can deliver.

         In Berlin, the regional trains are the backbone of this type of longer distance trip. It’s their equivalent to Sounder. RE1 has stops every few miles, a 100 mph maximum speed, and averages with station stops 70 mph. Due to the multiple stations, lines like this draw a lot more passengers than a single express train would because it serves the entire region along the line, not just two stations, and means someone can take a local bus or train to any of the stations and transit is still faster than driving, any time of day.

         You could make Sounder into one hell of an operation for the $2 billion or whatever you spend on a bypass.

      10. I think that those people that want Link to bypass SE Seattle are in denial about how lengthy the MLK segment is (at about four miles) The time “loss” is well under five minutes — and part of that is just diverting eastward a bit.

          I suspect that some of those are simply harboring latent fear about being in SE Seattle. Somehow the 10 minutes to go about four miles between Mt Baker and Rainier Beach feels too long to them. Well a bypass isn’t going to improve that travel time much. Keep in mind that Mt Baker station is further WEST than TIBS is. So a train going between SeaTac and SODO on a bypass and a few stops along the way would be hard pressed to gain any more than 3-5 minutes of travel time. And an MLK grade separation would make trains faster so it would likely reduce that to 2-3 minutes.

          The only way I see a bypass line making much sense is if the Link trains on MLK get too crowded so riders couldn’t board. And even then, a grade separation would enable more trains per hour to ease that overcrowding.

          We need to step back from feelings and look at more objective data like travel time and train loads. That’s what mature cities try to do. Objective, aggregate metrics should be guiding our future rail investment. We need to study more and opine less.

      11. Guess how many people don’t ride light rail because it’s faster to drive straight up on I-5.

          And guess how many would actually switch if they built a bypass line. The answer is: very few. Building a bypass line would be a huge waste of money.

      12. Slow travel times relative to driving is unfortunately just the reality of building freeway-adjacent light rail. Off peak it’s also significantly faster to drive from Lynnwood to Seattle.

          If anything ST should have a long-term vision for an express bus network and I-5 transit. The freeways are already built and are very fast.

      13. I have ST4 proposals, but they’re hard to explain, maybe I’ll share a post with a map some time.

      14. I would switch if there is a bypass line. The main reason I drive is because Link is literally slower.

          If there was a bypass line and buses serving the station (Stride/peak hour buses), I’d definitely take it.

      15. The mindset of you all that we can’t afford to build fast transit is the problem and why our transit system is horrendous, and that people can get to work and school faster by just driving… unless politicians “force” people onto transit by creating more road tolls.

          Look at other countries where they can build mass transit that takes you every where in a fast amount of time, with incredible frequency. Why do we have to put up with a 20mph average train (that breaks down almost every month) and 10-15 mph average bus (sometimes worse in traffic)? Then of course deleting every bus that goes over 20 mph because it doesn’t have “enough riders” and “too few service hours”

          You’re losing ridership by trying to improve city transit (which is already fast enough and really only needs more bus lanes and common sense design) instead of suburb transit which is where most of the traffic (and transit tax money…surprise) comes from…

          Seattle Subway is not at all visionary if we had our priorities straight in using our tax dollars.

      16. > Look at other countries where they can build mass transit that takes you every where in a fast amount of time, with incredible frequency.

          I don’t think y’all realize that most subways also travel with an average of 15/20 mph?

          like here’s a nyc subway example for 12 miles. it takes 50 minutes to travel.
          https://maps.app.goo.gl/uuKty17wb7eAY9UEA

          sendai train 12 miles away takes 40 minutes also it runs every 20 minutes https://maps.app.goo.gl/AmcDEVfu6NLt3bfc8

          The main thing when you visit other countries, is that you are traveling much shorter distances/ train stops.

          sure there are express service that are faster, but like we’d need a lot more density near the train stops to justify it.

          > The mindset of you all that we can’t afford to build fast transit is the problem and why our transit system is horrendous, and that people can get to work and school faster by just driving… unless politicians “force” people onto transit by creating more road tolls.

          The problem is that many american cities have literally tried what you guys desire.

          Nashville music city star, DART train, denver RTD etc… these all focused on prioritizing “fast” trains into downtowns and cheap route that is close to nothing just freeways and freight tracks. And they all ended up with relatively low ridership with their incredibly low density near the stations.

          It is just a very very poor ridership generator to solely focus on people driving to a train station, using up the parking space for the entire day, and then take the train back at the end of the day.

          It has been attempted 5+ times in American cities. And the train routes that focus solely on this pattern have abysmal ridership.

      17. It’s 45 minutes from Lynnwood to King Street Station by Link, and 25 by driving.

          The only reason Federal Way Link seems to be slower than Lynnwood is because it’s further.

          And keep in mind despite the terrible traffic on I-5 north of downtown Seattle, Lynnwood Link hasn’t really added that many riders for the distance it covers.

          The Federal Way to Seattle express buses are doing far better than what Link could do with a bypass. I doubt very much you would take Link with a bypass, because the time savings just isn’t there.

          Amtrak and Sounder cover the Tukwila to Seattle segment in about 20 minutes, including all the messing around it takes to deal with stuff around the station. I’d work on trying to find better ways to get people to that.

      18. “ The only reason Federal Way Link seems to be slower than Lynnwood is because it’s further.”

          Google says that Lynnwood is 16 miles from Westlake, while Federal Way is 25 miles. Angle Lake is listed as 16 miles.

      19. Giving slow examples of transit really isn’t a good seller for transit…

          But look at Vancouver Skytrain and their bus network.

          But to people here, if anyone proposes something like that, it’d be put down as unrealistic and visionary.

      20. > But look at Vancouver Skytrain and their bus network…, But to people here, if anyone proposes something like that, it’d be put down as unrealistic and visionary.

          …. vancouver skytrain literally doesn’t travel as far as federal way distances.

          vancouver to richmond is just 7 miles south.
          Vancouver to surrey is around 13 miles
          Vancouver to coquitlam is around 13 miles

          as i noted before “The main thing when you visit other countries, is that you are traveling much shorter distances/ train stops.”

          You probably just didn’t realize you were able to stay closer to your destination since they had more density aka hotels/apartments. and everything you wanted to go to was also closer by. unlike with swaths of single family homes.

          If we were to copy vancouver metro’s train system we wouldn’t build south of seatac and it would not reach federal way.

          They do have a commuter rail line similar to sounder the WCE. it runs only peak hour time. and for the 20 mile distance say pitt meadows to waterfront station it takes 46 minutes. basically the same as link

          https://maps.app.goo.gl/hKMtVwAoLUgXfXL26

      21. I would switch if there is a bypass line.

          There is a bypass line. It is called a bus. A bus can easily connect to Federal Way and then keep going to downtown. That way riders can transfer to the stations served by the metro (locally known as “Link”) or take the express bus to downtown. This is how this is normally done. It is the international standard.

          Consider Paris. Paris has one of the most extensive metros in the world. It also has one of the best regional rail systems in the world. It is not an auto-oriented city — they have freeways but they are nowhere near as extensive as you would find in a city like Seattle. Despite all the great and wonderful rail, it has a very extensive bus system as well. The RATP has 200 routes covering the suburbs. It means that you can take trips like this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/VhvzyMHjjYb6hWZv6. Less than 20 minutes to get from a relatively distant suburb into the city.

          If you want to argue that we should have more express buses and we should change the HOV-2 to HOV-3, be my guest. You will have company. I’ve been fighting for HOV-3 lanes on I-5 for years. It is such total BS that we are spending billions on a regional train system while the buses have to deal with traffic. When it comes to suburban transit, that is what we should be fighting for: Better buses.

          I honestly think that if the Spine ever gets built we will look back at the more distant sections as not only a waste of money but a distraction from what we should have built for regional transit. The promise of the spine has reduced pressure on the state to do the right thing (and add HOV-3 lanes). We are basically telling Tacoma and Everett to just endure slow buses because eventually the metro will go out that far. Even Sound Transit has made very little effort to get the state to change those lanes. Think about that for a second. This is board made up of regional leader — the head of every major city and county. They are largely pro-transit. Yet even in their role as board members of a regional transit agency they have made little effort to provide one of the most cost-effective improvements in regional transit: Change the HOV-2 lanes to HOV-3.

      22. While I would not complain about HOV3 , I would argue that HOV2 is actually perfectly fine.

          The main reason why HOV2 is bad is because most of them are cheaters. Even in HOV3 there is cheating too, but they’re found on tolled lanes which is why we see less of it.

          On 405, half of the people on the HOV lane weave in and out (causing traffic to slow behind them) and you can clearly see they are single occupant.

          It’s as simple as double white lines and better separation on the HOV lines until major exits, along with inline exits and auxiliary lanes if possible to ease merging at this point. It’s supposed to be a bypass but our current HOV lanes are free for alls.

          I have no problem with buses but they can’t be automated. Trains can. And it makes absolute sense to run express trains along the most redundant corridors like I-5 and I-405. These corridors need capacity and you can tell by how many people sit on the freeways every single day. And the airport is there too. Obviously this isn’t something to worry about now and we should focus on better coverage, but we should build it eventually.

          I don’t agree to remove Rainier Valley Link. I’m simply saying to add a bypass at some distant future and there is no reason not to. And it would significantly decrease the number of buses we need to run along the long distance in I-5.

          Sounder should also be modernized into a higher speed rail. For as few stops as it has its not fast but definitely does win out in peak traffic. But there are diminishing returns from Kent/Tukwila where most of the trip is done but the train covers fewer stops than the light rail, and has worse bus connections (especially at Tukwila).

      23. And I know the HOV scam is true since whenever the police is on the lane, the HOV magically moves significantly faster than every other lane. 🤔

      24. I’m sure there are people cheating but it is also clear that 520 (which is HOV-3) moves way faster than the HOV-2 freeways. I also think that it is much easier to cheat with HOT than with HOV. If you see a cop (or you are somehow notified of a cop) you just slide the little Flex Pass. Now you pay the toll. Big deal. Then a little while later you flip it back. In contrast if you are driving in the HOV lane and see a cop you either hope he doesn’t notice you or change lanes (which is a big red flag).

      25. They don’t cheat 520 because people already have the decency to pay a toll to use the road.

          I-405 drivers especially from Renton to Bellevue do not. And it’s a frustrating commute and definitely tempting to take the HOV lane. Same with I-5 up into Seattle from Tukwila.

          Most of them are cheating. I carpool and everyone I see are cheating. Even pickup trucks without a passenger. I’m actually looking very forward to Stride and the new toll lanes on 405, it will make everything better for carpoolers and transit riders. But of course people on this blog didn’t want Stride to serve Renton.

3. Based on the diagrams (https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/TooleDesignMlkatGraham.png) the best option by far is Alternative 3. This is much better for bikers and slower for cars. The only time you have more than one lane each direction is when there is a (left) turn lane. It is also easy to see how you could make the bike infrastructure just a little bit worse but widen the sidewalk. In the other alternatives they have five foot wide bike lanes and three foot wide barriers. Do that for alternative 3 and you could widen the sidewalk four feet on either end. You could also keep the wide bike lane but use a three-foot barrier (which is wide enough for a Jersey Barrier with room to spare).

   The only drawback is that a road diet would not allow for BAT lanes (or freight lanes). Putting aside freight for a second, I’m not sure we need BAT lanes here. The 106 is in an usual position. On the one hand, it duplicates Link. It operates as a “shadow”, picking up riders that are in between stations. If Link had more stations then this would be less valuable. Adding Graham will help. Another station or two and maybe the route shouldn’t run so often (if at all). On the other hand it connects Bryn Mawr-Skyway and Renton with various parts of Seattle (something Link doesn’t do). If the bus runs slowly down the corridor then maybe it should be restructured. This brings up another point:

   Isolating Link trains from other road users will reduce collisions with trains and improve Link’s reliability, but will not address the more common collisions between two vehicles or between a vehicle and a pedestrian.

   This is true but it makes giving the road a diet much easier. You could basically convert the street to one lane each direction and a center turn lane. Add the bike lanes and the sidewalk can become very wide. Alternatively, you could add BAT/freight lanes and bike lanes while only using three general purpose lanes (total). This would still use a lot less roadway which means you could make the sidewalks a lot wider. This means crossing the street is easier (and takes less time).

4. A few people have suggested that full grade separation would improve travel times. That would certainly increase safety and reliability, but would it meaningfully decrease travel time? I don’t regularly ride the Rainier Valley segment but I rarely if ever see the train get stopped by traffic lights.

   TIBS to SODO station is 11 miles and 6 stations. This takes 24 minutes.

   Symphony to Shoreline South is 10.5 miles and 6 stations. This is fully grade separated and takes 23 minutes.

   1. Full grade separation allows for other improvements that help time such as automatic train operator or full automation in the future. The DC Metro saw an 11 minute improvement to the red line when they implemented ATO. This was both due to a speed increase and better acceleration/deceleration from automatic operation. Additionally, speeds could be increased to 55mph from the 35 limit link has now. That would be most useful on the Rainier Beach to Marginal Way segment and the Graham to Columbia to Mount Baker segment, which are dead straight and fairly long distance.

      1. I think that just removal of the segment and rerouting light rail over to Georgetown and South Park is a safer choice, as you don’t have to spend over a billion dollars on projects, and you can just add center running BRT in Rainier Valley to Renton, and you can have Mount Baker become a terminal, so here are the three options:
         1. Restructure the segment.
         2. Eliminate the segment and reroute light rail onto Cheasty Boulevard to I-5 (serving South Seattle, Georgtown, and South Park), or just removal of the segment entirely and have Mount Baker become a terminal.
         3. Retain the segment, and re-route the rail onto I-5, with the Rainier Valley getting a streetcar.

      2. So the rainier valley sees worse service, is sidelined with investments (again), and loses their airport ride? How is that equitable at all.

      3. No, D M

         You extend the A Line to Rainier Beach, while having a new Rapid Ride (similar to the G Line) from Madison Valley (same terminal as G) to Renton via the old path of the at-grade Rainier Valley light rail.

      4. Good point. It also would allow us to run the trains more often in the future if we wanted to. [that was a response to the original comment by D M. A bypass line is a terrible value.]

      5. You extend the A Line to Rainier Beach, while having a new Rapid Ride (similar to the G Line) from Madison Valley (same terminal as G) to Renton via the old path of the at-grade Rainier Valley light rail.

         So you would run buses in the existing tunnel through Beacon Hill? That would certainly be different.

      6. Automation can occur without full grade separation; fully reserved ROW with the occasional at-grade crossing is a trivial problem for today’s automation technology. Full separation will allow for higher max speeds, though, which would cut down travel time slightly.

      7. Automation should in principle be possible for non-grade separated sections, though you would not necessarily want to increase the speed to 55 mph. The train only travels along the fixed track, and most if not all intersections are signalized. Some intersections could probably use train gates, granted, and some sections need hardened separation between the trains and other traffic. And this would be much cheaper than building a new elevated right of way.

      8. Is top speed even meaningful here though? Stop spacing will be around a mile along RV. By the time the train hits 35 mph it’s almost time to slow down for the next stop.

   2. Slightly off topic, jd, where did you get the distance between stations? I’ve estimated the distances by using Google Maps but would really like to have a chart.

      1. I also estimated them using google maps

5. Prohibiting left turns / U turns at some intersections might help a little bit, but is unlikely to deter the most dangerous/irrational drivers. For example, I live close to the intersection of S Brandon St and MLK, a few blocks south of Columbia City Station and the site of a number of reported collisions (and many more that are not reported/captured by the city’s stats). Left turns from both NB and SB MLK are already prohibited here, and that stops most reasonable drivers. But there are plenty of drivers who don’t care, and turn left across the tracks anyway. I see it pretty much every day.

   Enforcement is not going to stop these drivers. So what do you do? You could install a curb/median island/etc to prevent left turns from MLK as well as blocking cross-traffic on S Brandon St, just as was done a few blocks north at S Ferdinand St. You could easily pilot something like this with temporary barriers like eco blocks, although it would be ugly and uninviting. You’d probably have to do it as a corridor treatment, not just at a single intersection, because the same problem repeats as you go south along MLK. But this would certainly have some ripple effects as the light cycles at the remaining major intersections (Alaska, Orcas, Graham, Othello, etc) would likely have to get longer to accommodate more concentrated cross-traffic volumes. It would require a bit of patience as people adjust to different travel patterns.

   Mostly I think safe streets advocates just want to see some willingness from SDOT to try something without more years of studies and focus groups and the usual delays. It may not be perfect right away, but there are clearly a lot of obvious things to try as pilot treatments.

6. Anything that limits the through car lanes to 1 in each direction (one and three) would do the most for traffic safety. MLK simply doesn’t have the traffic volumes to justify this much capacity.

   https://home.urbanlogiq.us/public/sdot-road-segments?c=47.567135708585056%2C-122.29855171735801&z=11.094299219507096

   I’d also consider mid-block pedestrian red lights with direct platform access. Car drivers have so much to process at intersections when making a turn, looking out for pedestrians often falls down far too low on the priority list. Midblock crossings would allow for a much less dangerous car-ped interaction.

   1. Anything that limits the through car lanes to 1 in each direction (one and three) would do the most for traffic safety.

      Agreed.

      I’d also consider mid-block pedestrian red lights with direct platform access.

      There are a number of mid-block pedestrian crossings (with beg buttons). I don’t think any of them connect to a station. I think the stations are largely between two big crossing streets. It would be unusual to have a crossing in the middle of a platform (although I could see it being added).

      I think Graham will end up with a mid-block crossing on one end. The existing mid-block crossings do connect to the bus stops (as well as just allowing people to cross the street without a huge detour).

7. I am not sure what the signal plans are on those MLK intersections where Link Light Rail runs on surface. I wonder if any of the left turns have permissive phase (flash yellow when left turn needs to yield to opposite direction). In perfect world all the left turn should be protected so there is less conflict when left turn is green.

   The problem is that at a typical intersection, left turn only conflicts with opposite through traffic, but in these cases, the left turns also conflict with light rail traffic. It is like crossing 2 parallel streets at once. Reducing speed limit could help, but I think 35mph is more than enough for a car to avoid another car.

   I am not a big fan of any throwing an textbook active transportation plan to MLK. I don’t think it is solving the key issue here.

   Lane reduction won’t help battle speeding, lane narrowing will. If SDOT adjusts MLK to one lane per direction, it is not likely that it will make lane narrower than 11 ft, but with two lanes that might happen.

   Adding bike lane creates a more multiple transportation scene at this corridor and might help relieve car-dependency, but I don’t see any way this makes at-grade crossing safer. It might make it worse as left turn now is dealing with three layers of conflict from opposite direction.

   1. Correction: When I said “more multiple transportation scene“, I meant “multimodal transportation scene”

   2. I would be really surprised if there are any uncontrolled left turns allowed on MLK.

      Lane reduction won’t help battle speeding, lane narrowing will.

      Lane reduction definitely reduces speeding. One lane each direction means that cars don’t pass cars traveling the speed limit. Similar changes across the city have improved safety.

   3. “Lane reduction won’t help battle speeding, lane narrowing will.”

      The visual appearance of narrowing is one reason that I’m suggesting low fencing or plastic delineators or bollards between the pavement and the tracks on MLK. Today the street looks extremely wide. Given SDOT’s plentiful supply and eagerness to put in plastic bollards all over the city generally, it seems like a no-brainer to install them between the tracks and pavement on a dangerous MLK. They exist north of Rainier save already.

   4. Why not both? Yes, narrowing makes drivers less comfortable to speed, which helps a bit, for sure. But a single lane takes away the speedway aspect, and doesn’t give the stressed, late driver an option to pass and weave at high speeds. So they have to chill behind the law-abiders and grind their teeth. And leave earlier next time.

      Or better yet, leave their car at home.

8. “In May 2023, Seattle made No Right Turn on Red the default rule for new intersections.”

   This always puzzles me.
   If No turn on red is default, why there are still no turn on red sign at some of the intersections but not all the intersections. That gives me the impression that no turn on red is not default. I bet most drivers don’t know and there is not much of enforcement effort to make people aware of that.

   I know DC also made no turn on red as default. I wonder how they sign the intersections and enforce it.

   1. I was just visiting DC, and I don’t remember seeing any “No right turn on red” signs anywhere.

   2. It is the default for new intersections. By “new” it means intersections where they are doing work. So if they have to redo the intersection anyway they will ban free rights as well. But for existing intersections — where there is no sign saying you can’t do it — you can take a right on red. https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/05/04/no-right-turn-on-red-is-now-the-default-in-seattle/

9. Shouldn’t SDOT be proposing most of red light violation cameras for the left turn pockets off of MLK? Why hasn’t SDOT recommended this?

   Every car that crosses the Link tracks when they aren’t supposed to is a big reason why cars and Link trains collide. The damage to a train in one incident seems to be more costly than a red light violation camera would be for a turn lane.

10. The ugly truth about taking a lane on MLK is that it doesn’t prevent drivers and Link trains colliding. While it would slow down drivers on MLK, it doesn’t address the “stupid or drunk” driver from making turns and colliding with a Link train. The signal system is designed to prevent collisions between traffic and Link trains colliding — and the problem is ultimately bad behavior rather than bad design.

    1. @Al S

       Behavior is influenced by design. Taking a lane won’t solve all crashes but it would reduce the frequency and severity. This has been demonstrated time and time again:

       https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/road-diets/road-diet-case-studies

       1. Even though MLK traffic may be slower, Link trains won’t be. The data shown here is about collisions in general rather than with median-running light rail specifically.

          The Link train collisions are almost always a result of drivers making very risky choices. They’ll keep making those choices no matter how fast they’re moving on MLK.

          Certainly slower traffic will help reduce other kinds of collisions on MLK. It’s just it won’t significantly help the Link train- auto or Link train — pedestrian collisions.

       2. @Al S

          Road diets are known to reduce car-ped as well as car-car crashes. I do not think car-Link crashes are fundamentally different. And in any case, reducing car crashes would already be a major improvement for MLK. The biggest issue on MLK is car crashes.

       3. “Road diets are known to reduce car-ped as well as car-car crashes.”

          Agreed. It should be noted that road diets are literally about narrowing street pavement widths rather than converting pavement for other uses though.

          “I do not think car-Link crashes are fundamentally different.”

          I disagree. The entirely of Link on MLK has always had signals that don’t require anyone to independently determine if the tracks are safe to cross. Every train is preceded by red lights and no walk signs — and are augmented by train crossing signs. More warnings are now being added. If a car driver hits a train, it’s almost certainly because they blatantly disobeyed a traffic signal or restriction — and not just that they didn’t see something because they were driving too fast.

          I guess there is a remote possibility that a speeding car driver swerves to miss hitting something else and inadvertently rams into a train. But that seems like it would be much rarer than drivers just not obeying traffic control — which I’ve seen done on MLK on many occasions.

       4. “Road diets are known to reduce car-ped as well as car-car crashes.”

          Agreed. It should be noted that road diets are literally about narrowing street pavement widths rather than converting pavement for other uses though.

          That is simply not true. To quote the Federal Highway Administration:

          A Road Diet, or roadway reconfiguration, can improve safety, calm traffic, provide better mobility and access for all road users, and enhance overall quality of life. A Road Diet typically involves converting an existing four-lane undivided roadway to a three-lane roadway consisting of two through lanes and a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL).

          It isn’t about the width of each lane, it is about the number of lanes. Instead of four lanes for cars there are three. That is the diet.

          Notice that map shows a bike lane on the outside. That is clearly another use. Examples in Seattle are Nickerson, Stone Way and 125th NE (very close to where I live). You can see before and after pictures on Google Maps. In all the cases they added bike lanes.

11. TriMet has multiple different types of street running light rail, including median (E Burnside, SE 17th, Interstate Avenue) and beside (NE Holladay, Airport Way).

    On SE 17th, they were very deliberate about widening the MAX right of way at intersections. I’m guessing this has something to do with sight lines. It also gives illegal left turning drivers a place to stop before getting hit by the train. There are indicators next to the traffic signals so drivers know a train is coming. MAX operators are also fairly liberal in their use of the horn and bell before entering these intersections.

    Anyway, it might be interesting to compare notes to see if anything was learned here that could be applied there.

    For what it’s worth, the median section of MAX on Burnside between 122nd and Ruby Junction takes 14 minutes including 5 intermediate station stops, and the theoretical driving time by Google is 12 minutes. So, making light rail trains really slow compared to road traffic doesn’t seem to have been part of the effort here.

Comments are closed.