Elections, Events, and Campaigns:

Local Transit & Streets

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread.

81 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: too flipping expensive”

  1. MV Transportation is running Stride??! WHAT?! I have a strong transportation background, both public and private, and familiar with MV. They lost the Microsoft Connector contract due to frequent safety issues and a hostile work environment. They currently operate Access. This is a bit of a shocker, given that ST has always contracted to public agencies instead (with the exception of CT who contracts with First Transit)

    1. Probably one of those things where a proven-terrible contractor just never goes under because there’s always some credible idiot in a highly-paid job who somehow only reads snazzy PR briefs and never actually investigates the company.

      You see it so much, like “These people are TERRIBLE at their jobs, why do they keep getting picked?” and the answer is a combination of the above and a ludicrously-low bid.

      1. I’m unsure of the wage for MV when they had the Microsoft contract. Today, most private transport companies in the Seattle area start at $24-$26 an hour for non-CDL and give you a $2-$4 hourly premium when driving a CDL trip. A CDL is not required for most vehicles less than 25 passengers, so sprinter vans and airport-type shuttles.

        Of course, operating Stride vehicles will require CDL qualification, so the wage will be higher.

      2. @Jordan slight correction, a CDL is required for any vehicle that can transport 15 or more passengers, including the driver.

        Some Shuttles don’t require a CDL because they only have 14 passenger seats. Any more than that requires a CDL.

    1. I’d like to see Greg Spotts return to the job but the full reason for his early departure is not public knowledge and he recently went to work in the consulting industry.

      The next SDOT head needs to be someone who’s open to exchanging general traffic capacity for pedestrian safety and transit reliability, but also be able to work with the freight lobby to manage realistic expectations regarding how goods can and should move through the city. We have a rather large Transportation Levy that should crunching through projects right now, so it’s important to keep to that work momentum going.

      2. Yes, Spotts would be excellent if he’s available. He still comes back to Seattle to see how it’s doing, as in the Sunday Movie where Spotts and Best Side Cycling rode the new SODO cycletrack. There’s now a continuous bike trail from 15th Ave W through the waterfront to the Spokane Street bridge, and I believe on West Marginal Way to Tukwila, where the last time I was there it went to a low-volume street and the Green River Trail to Kent.

        If Spotts is not available, I don’t know who else would be excellent. I still like Kubly, but several people on this blog blame him for the overoptimistic Move Seattle budgets that led to the cancellation/deferral of several planned RapidRide lines, so I doubt he could get traction. I don’t know who else.

      3. FAT lanes still need analysis. It depends on context. It may work on Westlake, as transit does not stop often. But transit stops more in Interbay and SODO. Through freight would be impatient with transit stopping in lane. Transit would not want freight loading in the lanes.

        Freight flow could be improved by tolling the limited access highways.

        Neither Kubly nor Spotts would be encouraging; both were streetcar foamers; Kubly led Move Seattle astray. How about current leaders, Emery or Farrell?

      4. I think Spotts was a visible streetcar booster in spirit (and possibly to see if there would be interest in a public-private partnership) but he was part of the development of the 2024 Transportation Levy which notably omitted funding further work on the project.

        All the original planning for the streetcar showed it would be worthwhile at its original cost (~$177M), although it’s hard to know how reliable those plans were. Early coverage by The Seattle Times ($) article in 2017 (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-to-spend-177m-on-new-streetcar-line-amid-questions-about-unrealistic-revenue-rider-projections/) notes Kubly was the “streetcar czar” of DC’s DOT (DDOT) before coming to SDOT. DDOT had an ambitious streetcar plan that stalled with only one line; that single line is now dead and being replaced by a trolleybus. Now, Seattle’s Center City Connector project is all but dead and the future of the streetcars is uncertain. Is that Kubly’s fault, or the make-or-break nature of urban streetcars?

      6. Dickey re the CC Streetcar: in 2024, the council struck the CC Streetcar from the CIP; the Seattle Transpotation plan was composed under Spotts and included the CC Streetcar. It was Spotts who rebranded the line from the center city connecter to culture connector. Under Nickels, it was termed the Central line.

      8. Kubly was also party to the terrible ST3 cost estimates for West Seattle and Ballard, and especially DSTT2. Why? Because he was a young policy wonk who never has been involved in subway construction before. It has been a similar costing debacle as Move Seattle was.

        The SDOT director needs to be experienced enough to see a bad budget estimate or an infeasible project a mile away. It’s a very different managerial job than being a policy wonk. If that person wants a deputy that is a policy wonk it’s ok but it shouldn’t be the director’s primary qualification.

      9. “Kubly was also party to the terrible ST3 cost estimates for West Seattle and Ballard, and especially DSTT2.”

        Kubly wasn’t in Sound Transit. It wasn’t his cost estimate.

    2. How about hiring from within — someone who won’t leave before the next administration — and provide SDoT the stability it has been sorely lacking?

      I hear some of you were impressed by Adonis Ducksworth.

      1. Promotion from within would be nice. The current interim director, Adiam Emery, came from leading the Traffic Operations Division (which focuses on vehicle movement and congestion) and appears to be bringing some of that focus to pivotal SDOT projects – most notably the recent studies about Denny. So, should Emery be promoted to full-time Director? Or, would it be more disruptive to promote someone else to Director as opposed to hiring from outside the department?

        That seems like a tough decision that likely-Mayor Wilson will have to make.

      2. There has been a remarkable amount of instability at the top of the department. In general this is bad but I feel like Spotts was outstanding (and he came from outside) so I don’t think hiring another outsider is such a bad idea.

      3. Ah, Emery. I haven’t heard much about what she’s doing so I don’t whether she’d follow the example set by Spotts or not.

    3. I’m hoping against hope that SDOT is led by someone who will quietly improve maintenance of what we’ve already created.

      It may not be as alluring as new, signature projects — but I’m tired of letting SDOT constantly adding new things to maintain when what we’ve already created is being maintained inadequately. From faded and missing street markings like crosswalks to signals firing for non-existent cars or pedestrians for over a year to growing tree canopies blocking street lighting below them to the thousands of corners lacking any traffic control like a stop sign because SDOT is too cheap to put them up — yet will find the time and money to put in dozens of speed cushions with “bump” signs added or thousands of plastic lane delineators in unneeded places without telling even the adjacent property owners.

      1. Lol ain’t no way they can bake 30 billion in brownies, why not just convert Sounder to light rail and add infills?

      2. If every person in the ST district (roughly 3 million people) bought brownies every day at a net profit of $3 per person, it would take about 10 years to raise $30 billion.

        Ignoring the realities of human behavior, this could be achievable with a couple of brownie factories and a logistics system on the scale of Amazon’s.

      3. “Lol ain’t no way they can bake 30 billion in brownies, why not just convert Sounder to light rail and add infills?”

        You can’t just “convert Sounder to light rail”. You’d have to build a whole new trackway in/near the BNSF corridor. That would cost as much as South Link is doing, plus more if BNSF charges a high price for right of way. That’s what ST rejected when it created Sounder and located Link along the 99 corridor instead of Kent-Auburn.

        Kent and Auburn would have been better for ridership than Federal Way and Des Moines in my opinion, because they go right to railroad downtowns and have the biggest rideshed both west and east, but it wouldn’t have addressed the airport. One could imagine Link going to the airport and then crossing over to Kent, but that would be zigzagging and going over the I-5 ridge.

      4. Um, er, ah, “Sounder” runs on tracks with some very big things called “freight trains”. They would squish a Link car like a squirming bug. And enjoy it.

    2. Jack Whisner,

      Yeah, this makes me really sad because Sound Transit isn’t going to help out TCC in the next 20 years (and I’d guess never). Even if light rail did make it to the TCC campus, it wouldn’t be much help. Another high dollar train to nowhere….. Transit pumpers are brainwashing the kids into believing Sound Transit is actually good (or even working!) in Tacoma.

      The TCC campus is a South 19th… pretty close to dead center in the middle of Tacoma. Students come from all over the city to go there, but it’s not like students come from Federal Way much. TCC does not need any regional transit or light fail, thank you. It needs a working City bus system.

      . The T-Line starts at the Tacoma Dome (a homeless camp/wasteland with few residents) goes to UWT ,(a great place for transit) heads downtown to the Theater District ,(another low resident area) heads to the Stadium District (one of more dense and hopping neighborhoods) and doubles back to Hilltop (another low density neighborhood). It’s the train to nowhere with ridership so low it doesn’t run that often in the evenings or weekends.

      The biggest problem is the “Hilltop double back”. It’s faster to just walk up the hill from UWT to St. Joes (the end of the T- line) than to ride the train though 10 stops.

      1. A “visioning forum” is something that should have happened in 2017, not… [checks watch] 2025!!!

      2. The “visioning” forums in 2017 through the splitting of the WSBLE DEIS got us to where we are today – a vastly overpriced extension ending in an 85-foot-deep subway station (deeper than Capitol Hill station) where current zoning less than two blocks south of the proposed terminus limits residential construction to small-lot townhomes.

        The fundamental problem is that before 2021, ST’s planners prioritized construction impacts over construction cost. Instead of taking a center or side lane of Fauntleroy to support an aerial alignment (like SkyTrain does in lower-density areas of Vancouver), ST assumed SDOT would reject any taking of public ROW and assumed aerial construction would have to wipe out huge swaths of roadside properties. Also, because planning took so long, a set of cheap parcels south of Alaska & Fauntleroy were redeveloped into market-rate apartments and so ST’s assumed terminus property jumped in price by an order of magnitude, and ST knows the optics of demolishing hundreds of brand-new apartments, even would be turned into a transit terminal serving the whole West Seattle peninsula.

      3. “The fundamental problem is that before 2021, ST’s planners prioritized construction impacts over construction cost.”

        Yes I fully agree!

        The very structure of the Stakeholder Committee for WSBLE between 2017-2020 carried a tacit presumption that Link was a negative intrusion or nuisance to be mitigated rather than an advantageous investment that was offered. Everyone participating got to pitch making the project more expensive as a result.

        Sadly, it seems obvious even then that things were woefully underfunded. The tunnel segment was originally even deemed as unaffordable without additional funding for a few years. Then suddenly the tunneling was deemed part of the base project.

  4. I have to question Gov. Hochul’s math if she thinks universal child care is easy to provide, and bus fare revenue is a supergiant funding source.

    Just like with the Affordable (health) Care Act, the politicians are attempting a demand-side solution to a supply problem. One cannot simply legislate a huge new supply of professional care providers to suddenly appear.

    But if one wishes to do something about generational poverty, child care vouchers certainly do more than free bus fare does. Focus first on those who need it the most before trying the Child Care for All wishfulness.

    In Seattle’s case, the mountain is not so high to climb. But there are side debates to deal with, like, do you have to live in the City to be eligible? What constitutes working in Seattle? How do we avoid becoming the Delaware or Alaska of residential or working address claimants? Does the child care facility accepting vouchers actually have to be in the City?

    Eliminating bus fare is one way to make buses a little faster, but its effect could be neutralized by increased demand, and become another demand-side impact on a supply problem.

    Creating the bus lanes is a one-time expense that enables an ongoing operational savings. Thankfully, there is no single-family-housing NIMBY-shed to get in the way of that in NYC. Fast Bus Lanes ought to happen Fast! (But competently engineered)

    1. Brent White,

      Childcare is expensive and families need to find some work around because no city in the USA has an extra 3 grand a month to take care of your kid while you work a job making 4 grand a month. I think there’s a lot of dishonesty about what services the government could even think about providing. There just are not enough people who want to take care of kids that aren’t theirs making jack shit money. City voucher? That’s just talk.

      I’ve worked construction my whole life and it’s amazing to me how little college educated people know about blue collar work and how little they respect it. There’s so much talk on this blog about zoning as a solution to the housing crisis and it’s just not true. Housing is expensive because land, materials and labor are all expensive. Even if Seattle changes the zoning, it’s not like there’s this little army of elves that’s coming at night and building affordable housing. Over the last 25 years, the construction industry went full tilt…. there’s just not enough workers to build housing at a higher rate, zoning be damned. And shit costs a lot of money! You can’t ask construction workers to do more for less money.

      Childcare, housing, public education, transit….. they all cost a lot of money to be done right. And even if you can get the money, it’s a struggle to find qualified people to do the work. Looking at homelessness….. first there’s the physical housing at costs over $500K per unit….. and then there’s the “wraparound services” to help keep the poor bastards from becoming homeless again. You want to dedicate your career to helping stinky drug addicts? For 25 bucks an hour with shit benefit package? No way I’d sign up for this and I’m not surprised Seattle can’t hire enough support staff for the homeless services it currently provides. Or childcare workers, or bus drivers, or construction workers. Gov. Hochul is a fool … It will be interesting to see what Katie Wilson does as mayor!

    2. “Eliminating bus fare is one way to make buses a little faster, but its effect could be neutralized by increased demand, and become another demand-side impact on a supply problem.”

      In cities that have eliminated fares like Tallinn, Estonia, ridership increases only around 10%. Most of the people who would take the bus are already on it.

    3. Metro and SDOT have the Goldilocks solution on fares; network wide proof of payment fare collection with inspection; that helps with speed and security and attracts more ridership; subsidized ORCA to poor households; free youth transit from state; employers buying ORCA passes. Now execution.

    1. BAT lanes, business access and transit; right turns are required.
      Should have more service: add Route 11.

    2. Yes, BAT lanes on Denny by this time next year. Except for the little section leading to the island — that will continue to be a bus lane. Unfortunately I don’t see any rerouting (of a bus like the 11) by then. I have lost faith in Metro planners.

      2. Never had faith in Metro to begin with. The agency is filled with too many legacy-career types who have been in their position for way too long, don’t care about actual transit and still think it’s 1990.

      3. “The agency is filled with too many legacy-career types who have been in their position for way too long, don’t care about actual transit and still think it’s 1990.”

        Then why did Metro get much better at sensible restructures and in the 2010s and then regress in the 2020s? Did all those legacy-career types take a 10-year sabbatical and then came back?

      4. @Mike.. I recently checked the agency staffing list because I had a concern that wasn’t being taken seriously. The names on the list of managers were mostly the same since 2009. I’m surprised one manager is still alive. I have 10 years of combined experience at MT and CT. I have a feeling you have worked in public service before. From firsthand experience at both agencies, public service – predominantly leadership – is filled with people who mainly care about keeping the status quo, accruing their benefits and are mentally/emotionally stuck in whatever era they were hired in. Most do not take the bus. If they do, it’s peak rush hour service. It still shows today in service, how the agency communicates with customers and their priorities in projects.

      5. Consider cooperation of Wilson, Zahilay, and Rinck over their heads.

        I suppose that could happen but I doubt it. The only way I see that happening is if we bring in Jarrett Walker’s team to do a major restructure (for the entire county). That would be a county project.

      6. Mike is right. It has nothing to do with the age of the leaders. Organizations have ebbs and flows. Sometimes they get the right people in the right positions, sometimes they don’t. Right now they don’t have the right people in charge. A lot of these people are fairly recent additions. Older planners have questioned a lot of their choices. Armchair planners (like me) have done so as well.

        Keep in mind, this is only with the recent restructures. The restructure for UW Link was fine. It also very bold (the opposite of what has happened more recently). But the restructure for RapidRide G and the restructure for Lynnwood Link were terrible. The former was way too timid and the latter was just poor (at least in Shoreline). The numbers reflect that — Shoreline ridership per service hour is way down. (We’ll eventually have a post about it.)

        But hey, I would love to be proved wrong. I would love to see the planners shake off this losing streak and come up with some good plans. I think it is more likely to happen when we have a lot more service, and that won’t happen until the next levy passes (which is next year). In contrast we could get BAT lanes on Denny fairly quickly.

  6. Is Build the Damn Trains really against subarea equity? Its third demand lists key neighborhoods in all subareas, but I don’t see anything about reordering projects or inter-subarea borrowings. Subarea equity itself only says things have to balance out in the end. And I think ST could break it by simply writing a statement justifying its move.

    1. I’m not sure there’s any other way to interpret their third pillar, which is (currently):

      “We’re in this together as one region. [emphasis original]

      Sound Transit 3 was a regional vote. Every community pays in, and every community benefits. Nothing else has brought together Snohomish, King, and Pierce counties like Sound Transit has. Light rail connects us all: workers, families, students, and businesses across the Puget Sound.

      The projects in Seattle, like the downtown tunnel, are complex and expensive, but they will help the entire region access new neighborhoods, connecting Tacoma, Everett, Redmond, West Seattle, and Ballard. Voters in Pierce, Snohomish, and East King are waiting for their projects, too. Keeping the region united and delivering the full system is how we’ll make good on the promise of fast, reliable transit for everyone.”

      Focus on “Every community pays in, and every community benefits” and “The projects in Seattle… are complex and expensive, but they will help the entire region”. This language has been used recently to support weakening or eliminating the requirement for subarea equity.

      I don’t have a strong opinion about subarea equity because I think it helps comfort politicians and advocates outside of the North King Subarea (Seattle & Shoreline) that they’ll get what they’ve been promised in exchange for their taxes. If North King can’t afford its own projects, I’m not sure how cost sharing among other subareas (beyond the cost sharing agreed for DSTT2) will help.

      Perhaps TCC is hearing rumblings and rumors that ST Board reps from outside N. King are considering limiting the financial plan’s assumption regarding how much money they need to contribute to DSTT2? Or, perhaps they’re hearing rumors that certain on-budget projects in suburban subareas will get prioritized while over-budget projects in Seattle will get delayed indefinitely?

    2. “Focus on “Every community pays in, and every community benefits” and “The projects in Seattle… are complex and expensive, but they will help the entire region”. This language has been used recently to support weakening or eliminating the requirement for subarea equity.”

      None of that contradicts subarea equity. Subrquity breaking would be suspending Everett and Tacoma until WS/BLE is finished. This would mean postponing them to the 2040s or 2050s, and risk canceling them if ST can’t afford any more after WS/BLE or can’t afford to finish WS/BLE.

      Or conversely, suspending WS/BLE construction until after Everett and Tacoma Dome are finished. This would push WS/BLE into the 2040s/2050s. I don’t expect affordability problems with Everett it Tacoma so that woukdn’t be an issue for starting a postponed WS/BLE, just in finishing it.

      I don’t see anything like this being proposed by BTDT, so I don’t see how they’re challenging subarea equity. “Build all the things” by definition means building everything every subarea expects.

      Although I suspect there may be moves to descope P&R promises. That would disproportionally affect suburban subareas. But again, BTDT doesn’t mention P&Rs specifically so we don’t know whether they might be willing to bend on those and not include them in “all the things”.

      1. I’ve been curious how Yonah Freemark’s analysis from a decade ago would change now that more definitive and much higher cost estimates exist for ST3 projects.

        https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/06/youve-got-50-billion-for-transit-now-how-should-you-spend-it/

        For example, he demonstrates that Ballard to Downtown is a better value than Downtown Redmond Link — but the latter true project cost was mostly know while the former was off by well over 100 percent, and ST forecasts expected that Downtown Redmond Station would have fewer future riders with a full 2 Line than they do today with only the line partially open.

        The ST Board is still not in the habit of making decisions off of value-added analyses — so it likely wouldn’t change the outcome. Regardless, it would be revealing — especially with West Seattle Link and the added cost of the DSTT2 segment.

      2. With campaigns like these, I think it’s important to consider why certain elements are prioritized and why others aren’t. Their first two pillars are clear: 1) no cancellations; and 2) no delays.

        The third pillar “we’re all in this together”, is not explicit about what it means, so all we have is implication but it’s fairly obvious TCC is advocating for “Regionalism” as it pertains to Sound Transit’s projects.

        The Urbanist covered the ST Board’s support of Regionalism last year: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/03/01/sound-transit-board-pledges-stronger-commitment-to-regionalism/

        That article quotes Balducci’s rhetorical questions: “If it’s a regional system, why do we have [the subarea equity] policy? Why don’t we just pay to build what we need to build in the whole system?”

        This year, the Urbanist speculated the Board might be backing away from that pledge as the Enterprise Initiative seeks programmatic cost savings: https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/09/04/the-sound-transit-board-signals-a-return-to-parochialism/

        So, Regionalism can mean a lot of things, but logically, if TCC wants no cancellations and no delays, then what do they expect to get out of a renewed commitment to Regionalism? It seems obvious to me the hope is that subareas with excess income will pitch in for projects outside their subareas, which is antithetical to the subarea equity requirement, and therefore TCC is implicitly opposing hard boundaries for subarea equity.

      3. “For example, he demonstrates that Ballard to Downtown is a better value than Downtown Redmond Link”

        The projects are quite different now too. Redmond has changed a lot since 2016. Ballard Link, on the other hand, doesn’t really serve Ballard. Expedia and South Lake Union still add a lot of riders though.

      4. I’ve been curious how Yonah Freemark’s analysis from a decade ago would change now that more definitive and much higher cost estimates exist for ST3 projects.

        I assumed (before reading that blog post again) that the ridership estimate for Downtown Redmond was way too low. Turns out they expect 8,000 riders eventually. That seems like a stretch. I could see Downtown Redmond moving up a little bit (since it doesn’t have the big cost overruns) but otherwise things are similar. Things like infill stations (Graham) and streetcars are the best value in terms of ridership per dollar spent. Ballard has so much more ridership potential than West Seattle (let alone the suburban projects). It’s not like anything has gotten really cheap. Even the BRT projects — which surprisingly were always a bad value — have gotten a lot more expensive.

        In terms of time saved per dollar spent, I think you have a similar situation. Basically most of ST3 is a terrible value. They should build Ballard Link, some infill stations and just give the various transit agencies cash (to run the buses more often or add bus lanes). ST really deserves a lot of credit for building a very good regional bus system (by American standards). Yet somehow they are spending a fortune to run a few buses on the freeway (along with a bus that will underperform the route it replaces on SR-522).

      5. It should be noted that he focuses on ridership per dollar spent. This does not necessarily reflect “value” and he writes about that in his next post (https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2016/04/22/which-riders-matter/). Infill stations are bound to perform well based on ridership-per-dollar metric. A purple-bus project (where all they do is paint the buses purple) will perform really well, too. Sure, it gets the same number of riders. But for the cost of the paint it is a great value. Ridership-per-dollar is really just the first step of any analysis. If that number is really low you gotta wonder if it is worth it.

        The thing is, if you look at ridership-time-saved per dollar spent, it doesn’t change things that much. West Seattle Link won’t be much faster than the buses. Neither will a lot of the suburban rail lines. Ballard Link, however, will be. The infill stations might not save those riders a lot of time, but they will still save them some.

      6. “Even the BRT projects — which surprisingly were always a bad value — have gotten a lot more expensive.”

        They’re still much cheaper than building a light rail track from Lynnwood to Bellevue, Renton, and Burien, and another from Shoreline South to Bothell. Especially since much of it would have to be elevated. So do you want to spend a little on BRT or a lot on light rail?

      7. Here’s what I think will happen:
        Sound transit knows they have to make deep cuts but still wants to maintain credibility so that they can finish the job with ST4 in a couple decades, so they’ll try to distribute the cuts across the subareas while balancing bragworthy achievements.

        For each subarea, that means something like the following:
        N King: defer West Seattle and the DSTT2 south of Westlake (although they might partially excavate for Ballard’s turnaround track after Westlake). Keep Ballard, Stride S3, and Graham St (a token that South Seattle isn’t forgotten)

        Snohomish: truncate at Paine field, keep Stride S2. Finishing towards Everett gets deferred. Maybe Sounder N stays as a symbol of good faith and a stopgap service to Everett.

        S King: defer S Federal Way, Boeing Access Rd, truncate Stride S1 at Tukwilla and defer the Burien portion

        Pierce: Link gets built to Tacoma Dome, but Fife and Portland Ave stations get deferred, the streetcar extension gets truncated about halfway, and Dupont Sounder extension is deferred.

        E King: keep the Stride Lines, Redmond is already built out, and maybe Link line 4 gets turned into something like Stride S4 or is deferred entirely.

        The goal is to balance subarea equity, achievable yet impactful improvements, and a shiny promise to each subarea if it votes for ST4 in the 2030’s. A balance of politics and pragmatism.

      8. @ Delta:

        The budget overages are much bigger for West Seattle, DSTT2 and Ballard. They’re like triple the original amount. The other big extension overages are much more minor.

        That generally means that the cutbacks would be minor everywhere besides North King, if the other subarea contributions to DSTT2 are returned the other projects will be mostly affordable.

        Snohomish would only need to drop one station — probably Downtown Everett (over 3 miles from the next station). I’d love for logical heads to prevail and the two lines split south of Mariner to give each line more time to reverse trains — but the locals seem oblivious to the operational difficulties of the current scheme.

        Pierce is messy because East Tacoma and Fife have tribal land agreements. It may be the the Puyallup Tribe offers to build a new Emerald Queen casino at the Fife Station and move the Fife one there, for example.

        East King would probably defer the South Kirkland Station. Certainly Stride to Issaquah would be better for transit travel time – but “rail envy” will probably rear its head if 4 Line is fully dropped.

        South King doesn’t have much it can drop except BAR or maybe South Federal Way — or Sounder capacity enhancements which seem no longer needed.

        That leaves North King. I think most of us would encourage ST to build between Westlake and Interbay first. However West Seattle has political momentum and will be hard to cancel. As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I could see West Seattle getting built as far as Delridge or maybe Fauntleroy and DSTT2 being built to the county building — even though I and others think it’s a terrible way to spend that money. .

      9. [The BRT projects] are still much cheaper than building a light rail track from Lynnwood to Bellevue, Renton, and Burien, and another from Shoreline South to Bothell.

        Yes, but a let fewer riders will use them. Look at the numbers for the second table again. Sort by “Subsidized Cost” (this is hard to see but it is at the far right). Ballard is the lowest. To Al’s point, is it still the lowest? Maybe not. But things haven’t changed that much. For example, Stride 3 is labeled “145th and SR 522”. The cost per (30 years of riding) is 7.59. In terms of capital cost per rider, it is much higher than Ballard Link. It may still be higher, because the cost of both have gone up.

        Again, I’m not equating ridership per dollar spent as the same as “Value”. But in terms of the point Al raised, I don’t think that much has changed.

    3. It’s ambiguous. They specifically mention a downtown tunnel. Speaking as an Eastside resident, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for the Eastside to subsidize a Downtown Seattle tunnel that East Link will use. I don’t think many Eastsiders would be against that.

      Having the Eastside subsidize the Ballard-West Seattle line seems more dubious. Especially with how Seattle has inflated the cost because of their own parochial concerns. I mean, specifically for this second downtown tunnel: you could cut that, send Ballard-West Seattle through the existing tunnel, and save tens of billions of dollars. Maybe Seattle-Redmond service suffers as a result, but I think that’s a reasonable trade-off. Or you could build a second tunnel, but do it cut-and-cover, and save billions of dollars that way.

      There have been a lot of choices like that, and almost always, the more expensive choice has been made. If the people making these choices are the same ones that have to pay for it, then fine. If they’re making these choices with the expectation that someone else will pay for it…

    4. “Light rail is more popular than the Kraken, or the return of the Supersonics,” Hovenkotter said.

      I seriously doubt that. I think if they had another vote it would lose. Even in Seattle it would struggle. There would be more opposition from the transit community. People saying “Wait a second, if we spend this kind of money making the buses faster or building rail somewhere else, it helps way more people.”

    5. If we want to get rid of subarea equity, then don’t make the suburbs pay. We shouldn’t pay for anything we don’t get.

      It’s absurd why progressives entire platform depends on others paying for their stuff. Taxes are normal but they’re supposed to be an investment by the taxpayer on their community, state, and country… Not other cities.

      1. As an unincorporated King County resident, I don’t have to worry about ST taxes, but it’s still annoying for many people I know who live in the boundary.

        Furthermore I’m used to King County misusing our taxes to fund brand new better transit routes, road pavement and sidewalks in unincorporated Redmond while similarly populated areas here don’t get sidewalks, safe streets, or street lights. At least they fix the potholes… Yay

      2. “We shouldn’t pay for anything we don’t get.”

        Here! Here!
        I agree!
        I no longer live in the ST taxing district, and I resent having to pay for SOV capacity upgrades to the I-405/SR167 corridor via the approximate 10 to 15 cent increase in the state gas tax over the years dedicated to those megaprojects.

        I never use them.

        Wish that increase was explained on the ballot measure…
        Oh, wait?!

      3. If we want to get rid of subarea equity, then don’t make the suburbs pay. We shouldn’t pay for anything we don’t get.

        Except the suburbs clearly benefit from what is built in the city. For example imagine the trains only went from the U-District to downtown. Someone from the south end would take a bus to downtown and then take the train to the UW. They clearly benefit. Then there is the economic benefit. An investment in the city raises way more tax money which in turn is spread out over the region (and state).

        It’s absurd why progressives entire platform depends on others paying for their stuff.

        You have it backwards. Cities subsidize suburbs. This is well known and yet there is this myth that it is the opposite. My guess is the myth was political and like so much in the country had race as its origin. Too many white suburbanites assumed that the country was paying way too much on free-loading black people in the city. While the racial attitudes have gone away, the general myth persists. But it is backwards. The suburbs couldn’t survive without the cities. The cities would be just fine without the suburbs.

        Ultimately though, what is important is making a smart investment. A stupid investment in the city might be better than a stupid investment in the suburbs but it is still stupid. It does no one any good if we spend money on wasteful projects. People in the suburbs would have been way better off if they had built a much better system inside the city — even if they had to chip in for it. Instead they will get ridiculous extensions like Tacoma Dome and Everett Link.

      4. The main cost problems with ST3 are the West Seattle and DSTT2 + Ballard projects. While other ones show higher costs the deficit isn’t off like it is either of these.

        That said, subareas are arbitrary. My ST sales tax paid at IKEA in Renton goes to pay for a 4 Line extension to Issaquah but not Sounder nor light rail to Seattle where I live.

        Then there is the income equity issue with geography. Some subareas have lots more transit-dependent people than others, so creating a subarea with more wealthy people is problematic.

        Finally, most of ST taxes are assessed at the residential end, like property taxes and car tabs. Even most sales taxes are collected at nearby supermarkets, restaurants and drug stores. Yet people often commute to other subareas and ST is supposed to fund more regional travel anyway. So the destination end of the trip isn’t paying the same proportion that the home end is.

      5. The main cost problems with ST3 are the West Seattle and DSTT2 + Ballard projects. While other ones show higher costs the deficit isn’t off like it is either of these.

        Maybe so, but they are still terrible values. Current estimates put the cost of Everett Link at about $7.7 billion. That is over a billion dollars a station. Most stations will struggle to perform as well as Shoreline North (which has yet to exceed 1,500 riders a month). Tacoma Dome Link is similar — about $4.7 billion for four stations that probably won’t perform very well. Issaquah Link is much worse. Despite all the cost overruns the fundamentals with ST3 have remained the same. Ballard Link, Downtown Redmond and the infill stations were the only worthy Link projects. Every other area should have had better bus service instead.

      6. Except the suburbs clearly benefit from what is built in the city. For example imagine the trains only went from the U-District to downtown. Someone from the south end would take a bus to downtown and then take the train to the UW.”

        And there are quite a number of indirect benefits as well.

        Eg: a substantial amount of money was being spent on buses stuck in traffic between UW and downtown Seattle. Link uses one driver for 5x or so the number of passengers. By reducing the money spent on buses in Seattle, those bus hours can be put to use in places where Link doesn’t go.

        Currently, the operating cost per passenger for stuff like Everett Link or Line 4 look to me as though it will add significant operating cost without the benefit of reducing the cost per rider, so you wind up having to take service away from somewhere.

      7. “Maybe so, but they are still terrible values.”

        Of course I agree with you on this, Ross. From poor ridership forecasts to poor overall transit travel time savings for most riders to anticipated eroded system productivity like operating cost per rider, most of ST3 is a 30-year pause on an opportunity to add rail transit where it is most beneficial.

        And at its core is the subarea concept. I get how no one in South King wants to pay for tracks in Snohomish so it does have some validity. Sadly, the subarea packaging budget was way off with Ballard and West Seattle much more so than the other big ticket extensions. So either they get paired down by 2/3rds or Seattle kicks in at least $10B if not $15B more. That’s funds that could be spent radically improving transit in Seattle much more effectively.

        I think that the looming political question is how to reverse course, especially with West Seattle. If we build WS Link as planned, we will probably only have funds to build DSTT as far north as King County buildings — with a severed 1 Line and the awful transfers.

        The “ Build the Damn Trains” push today is indicative of the problem. Rather than advocate for a less costly but more productive approach, they simply want to start building what ST has planned but can’t afford. They neglect to see that the problem has always been bad planning and costing. Their urgency does have a good point though — as ST has wasted lots of years on incidental particulars (which block gets bought out and demolished for a station) with expensive outcomes added, yet never has been frank about how underfunded these baseline projects are. These people seemingly believe that the problem is somehow the “Seattle process” and not ST costing errors and lack of planning for maximum systems benefit to the overall region.

      8. I agree, Al. I think people think the problem is planning (i. e. “the Seattle process”). It isn’t. The problem is building what they want to build is way to expensive. They don’t have the money to build it. They could start tomorrow and it wouldn’t help. You run into the debt limit fairly quickly and as prices keep going up, you never can afford it.

  7. Wondering about the new announcements on the 1line. Last weekend i heard from international district going towards Westlake each station that you could connect to the 2 line. And at International district that you could connect the the S and N line.

    I like that they are trying to improve the messaging. Anyone knows if this was just a test? Hope they will improve the messaging to reflect reality.

    1. I expect ST will maintain the announcements unless there is significant rider confusion regarding the 2 Line. They’ve also started adding signage to stations in Seattle indicating 2 Line service. I guess someone could get confused and decide to get off a 1 Line train and wait for a 2 Line train, but the lack of a scheduled arrival on digital signage would (hopefully) dissuade them from waiting too long.

    2. ST recently announced that they will start running a few empty test trains the full length of the 2 Line to/ from Lynnwood to prepare for the eventual two-line system north of CID.

      https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/crosslake-update-testing-advances-floating-bridge

      Surely these 2 Line train tests will eventually allow for passengers north of CID weeks or months before the actual opening across Lake Washington. It would seem a bit wasteful not to.

      The new diagrams above the train doors show both 1 and 2 lines open north of CID already. The announcement changes seem like just one more step to get to our 2026 Link operation.

      1. “Surely these 2 Line train tests will eventually allow for passengers north of CID weeks or months before the actual opening across Lake Washington. It would seem a bit wasteful not to.”

        The way bureaucracy works says they probably won’t.

      2. I expect they won’t allow passengers until they start simulated service, but the real question will be whether they can clear eastbound trains of passengers at CID fast enough to maintain schedule. My guess is that they’ll have enough issues with it that they’ll only let passengers onto northbound trains.

  8. Election update:

    Katie Wilson has officially won! LET’S GO SEATTLE!!! This means we get Trump-Proof Seattle, and bus lanes! Now we just have to wait for Trump to be impeached a third time once democrats win the house in 2026.

      1. The progressive slates did well in Burien and Kirkland, too. Kirkland voters didn’t dump the incumbent on its council; but in the other races, the more progressive and transit friendly candidates won. And, looking at the mollywoppin’ that Sara Nelson took, there’s a clear message for local elected politicians: get things done!

  9. Another question for the horde: if you could waive a magi wand (I.e., not pay a bunch of money to make him leave), would you put Claudia Balducci in charge of Sound Transit which allows Dow to write his memoirs?

    1. No, she needs to remain on the ST board. I emailed Zahilay and said it’s critical he renominate her to the board. She has the best sense of any of the boardmembers, the best understanding of passengers’ needs, and the most innovative ideas. Her voice is needed as ST addresses ST3’s costs, and makes project decisions and operational decisions. Making her CEO means she’d have no say in what the board decides, and she’d have to do it even if it’s boneheaded.

    2. Nope. Sound Transit needs an experienced head from the rail transit world. And not a little toy train line Norfolk, but a busy multi-line system with some crowding issues and maintenance pressure. .

      And that head needs to have enough experience to know what are realistic schedules and budgets to build, maintain and repair things..

      Then Balducci should be the head of the Board.

Comments are closed.