Berry Street in Brooklyn, New York. The best urban street in the US? (Fourth Place)
Sabine Hossenfelder, German physicist, is pessimistic about humanity’s ability to cope with climate change. (Sabine Hossenfelder)
This is an open thread.
101 Replies to “Sunday Movies: Berry Street & Climate”
Comments are closed.
Berry Street is not that impressive.
The beauty of NYC’s cityscape doesn’t break down to a specific street. It is its walkability and vibrant curbside activities citywide. You walk into a random street and you find shops of either local or mall brands there. You don’t need and even want to drive to a place like Berry Street because other transportation options exist and maybe more convenient than driving.
Promoting a specific street design sometimes falling into the trap of fake Main Street scheme. There are more and more this kind of projects where they fake a town center and people would drive to the garage one block away and experience urbanism there. That’s just pathetic.
HZ,
I’ve been to NYC but I don’t really know much about the city at large, but I have been to Chicago much more, and honestly…. much of that city isn’t a place I’d want to live. There are a lot of neighborhoods down south that don’t even have trains and the bus service is pretty spooky to ride at night.
Let’s look at Greater Seattle….. very little of it is served by light rail and isn’t all that friendly for non-car driving folks. Can’t imagine living in Kent without a car, or much of Bellevue or Everett. Even Rainier Beach without a car doesn’t sound fun. So maybe 20% (at most) of the 4 million people in Greater Seattle live a walkable neighborhood? And guess where the highest housing prices are? Working class people often end up in some dumpy apartment down in White Center or Skyway.
The sort of urbanism you’re talking about is never going to happen again in the USA. The limited supply of land, materials and labor in the few urban cores young Liberals want live in makes them too expensive to really add that much housing. Seattle has expanded to the point where their just isn’t that many people who are comfortable paying 2 grand a month for an apartment and it’s so expensive to build in the city that landlords need 2 grand a month to cover expenses and make a small profit. And if 2 grand is a too steep for rent… move to Skyway?
Those “fake” main streets with a huge parking garage behind them you hate? That’s the sort of urbanism that pencils out.
“So maybe 20% (at most) of the 4 million people in Greater Seattle live a walkable neighborhood? And guess where the highest housing prices are?”
WHY IS THAT???
What if we make 80% of the Greater Seattle area walkable? What if we’d continued doing that ever since the 1920s? We don’t have to guess. When I asked my friend in Spain how much of Granada was walkable, he said all of it! Málaga, the same.
If more of the region were walkable, and especially more like Fremont and Ballard than The Landing and the Spring District, then you wouldn’t have so many people trying to squeeze into the 20% of the land that’s walkable and driving prices up. People could find lower-cost walkable areas in the rest of West Seattle, Skyway, Renton, Kent, Tacoma, Lynnwood, Edmonds, etc.
“The limited supply of land, materials and labor”
What if that same materials and labor weren’t wasted on unwalkable iconic buildings, big-box/strip-mall arrangements, unwalkable neighborhoods, and tower-in-the-park apartment buildings like on the Bothell-Everett Highway, and instead on true walkable designs that frequent transit could easily serve?
Mike Orr,
You bring up good questions. Tacoma leaders actually thought that the T-Line would invigorate Downtown Tacoma, Hill top and the Dome District into a place people could live without owning a car. Didn’t happen. Even building a university from scratch (UWT) couldn’t make downtown livable. I do know a number of young families who bought houses on Hilltop thinking the neighborhood would “turn the corner” and are disappointed now. There’s a great deal of angst from young people who can’t afford Seattle, a great deal interest in social housing (afforded housing for me built on the government dime) but their certainly isn’t much interest into moving to Tacoma. But please feel free to do so! I love Tacoma.
The difference between Washington State and Utah is Utah is committed to using citizen’s private money (and credit) to grow. The problem with Lefty Urbanists is the solutions for transit, housing and urban planning land squarely on the government’s shoulders. You of all people Mike, must know it’s Sound Transit vs. Social Housing. There just isn’t enough money for both. Where Utah just builds a bunch of roads and lets builders put up houses sold to families and those families buy cars and drive everywhere. Growth in Utah is mostly privately financed. It might not be what you like, and I’d even agree with you that South Provo is a traffic disaster…. but the funding mechanism is in place.
I guess the real solution for Seattle would be finding a way for families to own a home (mortgage) with an income of $100K. That would unlock billions in private credit to push the City forward, because the City just doesn’t have the money.
“Where Utah just builds a bunch of roads and lets builders put up houses sold to families and those families buy cars and drive everywhere.”
Then where do people who don’t want to drive or can’t drive go? How does the city get a grip on the exponential externalities of car dependency? Or the maintenance-cost trap they’re digging themselves into?
Mike Orr,
The growth in Utah centers around families who are willing to take on $500k in personal debt for a house. Katie Wilson thinks Seattle’s growth should center around the government taking on $500k of debt so somebody can have an apartment. Or some REIT putting up new apartments with rents of $2000 that many people can’t afford.
No matter that you and I think about suburban Utah, it’s got a working funding mechanism that works. Urbanism in America currently lacks one.
The financing mechanism may work but the mobility mechanism doesn’t work.
Mike Orr,
Finance is everything. Without the money, things just aren’t possible. I never thought Sound Transit had the finances to complete all the projects in the voter’s guide, and here we are.
Urbanism has to somehow dump the whole “free ride” ideas Mike, and I’d guess you already know that. Can you imagine Mayor Wilson hosting a debate to choose social housing OR light rail as a way forward for Seattle? That Subway to Ballard or 6,000 units of social housing? Pick one please!
Meanwhile In American Fork UT and Round Rock TX builders just keep cranking out owner occupied housing. Have you checked out the list of tech companies with a footprint in Utah? Or finance companies and banks growing jobs in Texas? Because Seattle, NYC and Northern Cali are full up. No more room.
@tacomee
Wilson ran on cutting bureaucratic hurdles to the private market in addition to social housing. There’s obviously no way social housing will build enough housing for Seattle
jd,
Can’t see Mayor Wilson being a friend to private development. For REIT investors “renters rights” read as “please don’t invest here”. Private development always means displacement. New housing might be a good thing overall, but not if destroys the housing you’re personally living in. Katie hasn’t said the magic words of “rent control” yet, but she’s a socialist so it may be only a matter of time.
Also Katie Wilson is mayor of around 20% of Greater Seattle and the part she has a say in has the worst homeless problems and the highest housing prices. It’s also tough to tax employers when jobs can move out of the city limits easy enough….
Let’s give her the benefit of a doubt however. Downtown Bellevue is locked and loaded for more development and I’m not sure what a socialist mayor can really offer to keep investors in the City. Blue Cross/Blue Shield used to be in downtown Seattle, then moved to Downtown Tacoma, then sent the customer service reps to work from home and are currently investing in a new home in Kent. There isn’t a big push to move back to Seattle. I really believe they’re will be rent burdened young professionals living in Seattle by choice who end up commuting to offices in Kent or Tukwila in the next few years.
Much of the reasons neighborhoods and commercial districts aren’t walkable is zoning laws and regulations. In other words, government intervention distorting the market. Some walkability features don’t cost any more than not doing them. For instance, you can simply turn around a building to make its entrance face the street instead of facing the back of the lot or the far side.
“Finance is everything. Without the money, things just aren’t possible. I never thought Sound Transit had the finances to complete all the projects in the voter’s guide, and here we are. ”
We were talking about housing and land use, and you keep turning the topic to ST3 Link. To me, building shape and walkability and comprehensive local bus routes are in some ways much more important than whatever happens to ST3 Link, and affect people’s everyday life much more, and whether they can do a lot of their trips without a car.
“Katie Wilson thinks Seattle’s growth should center around the government taking on $500k of debt so somebody can have an apartment. Or some REIT putting up new apartments with rents of $2000 that many people can’t afford.”
The point of densification and more market-rate housing is to reduce the upward price pressure on market-rate housing. Then you wouldn’t need such an increasing amount of government debt for public housing.
“Can you imagine Mayor Wilson hosting a debate to choose social housing OR light rail as a way forward for Seattle?”
People need both a place to live AND mobility, just like they also need food and healthcare. You can’t reduce it to one or the other.
“Can’t see Mayor Wilson being a friend to private development. ”
We’ll see what she does and what policies the city passes. Streamlining permitting, cutting unnecessary regulations, and speeding up the permitting process aren’t just a sweetheart-deal gift to private developers, they’re a public benefit and eliminating counterproductive inefficiencies. Even you and libertarians would probably be for that.
“Also Katie Wilson is mayor of around 20% of Greater Seattle and the part she has a say in has the worst homeless problems and the highest housing prices.”
… because it’s the largest city with the highest population and density and the most social services. When you have a large population, a proportional share of homeless will be higher. When you have high rents, homelessness will be higher. When you have suburbs that refuse to provide their share of homeless services and try to avoid having shelters or traditional housing, or don’t have good transit to the services they do have, the only rational thing a homeless suburbanite can do is move to Seattle.
Oh, you are SO right tacomee.
Thanx and a tip of the Hatlo Hat to the Philosopher of Baseball, Yogi Berra.
Mike, ignore tacomee or jeer at him. He isn’t a serious person.
Mike Orr,
Yeah, you’re right. It’s hard to say what Mayor Wilson is going to do. She’s been pretty careful about not tipping her hand, other than new “progressive” taxes are on their way.
I’d guess it’s quite possible Wilson is going have more trouble from the Left than from the Center. Rent control is on its way in Seattle! The same voters who elected the new mayor all love rent control as well. I see it happening one way or another. And Seattle still has the Tree Police and Ecco warriors to help stall any growth.
The bottom line is always going to be NIMBY. With some high taxes on business to drive jobs out of the City and rent control… it’s quite possible for Seattle renters to enjoy the same benefits home owners fight for, the NIMBY code. “I love living here and I don’t want anything to change”. I would bet most Seattle residents believe life was better in Seattle 10 years ago, or 25. With a majority of Seattle voters renting…. it’s in their best interest to try to freeze rent and keep the City they enjoy close to the way it is now.
So with massive business hikes stalling all tech job growth and a raft of “renter protections” maybe Seattle regresses into something like San Francisco was for awhile? In the long run, this might turn out a disaster, but then do the voters care? As long as they control a golden ticket rent controlled apartment…. why do we need any of that pesky growth?
“Didn’t happen.”
Then maybe go get your eyes checked, because Hilltop is becoming a more walkable and lively neighborhood from the T Line investment, as is the Stadium District. The Dome District is likely to become a better neighborhood long term in the next 10 to 20 years, as of right now the seeds are merely just being planted. Your negative nancy attitude towards change kinda speaks to your own close minded attitude towards urbanism.
“it’s quite possible for Seattle renters to enjoy the same benefits home owners fight for, the NIMBY code. “I love living here and I don’t want anything to change””
It depends on what they consider a benefit. Some people consider larger walkable areas and medium density a benefit, because it means more places to shop, more jobs to choose from, more people who might become friends or a partner, without leaving the walkable environment. Some people choose to rent in Seattle for that kind of environment, even it would be cheaper or closer to work or more of a chance for house ownership in the suburbs. Or they may not just selfishly care about themselves, but also about their children being able to find a place to live, or everybody’s children.
Far north Seattle has surprised us over the past decade, being an area with a lot of single-family homeowners whom it was assumed would be NIMBY, but instead have voted YIMBY for candidates supporting more infill housing.
@tacomee
NYC/SF style rent control isn’t and hasn’t been on the table
jd,
Tacoma voters passed a strict rent control measure and the Washington State government passed a less restrictive rent control measure as well. I’d guess it’s only a matter of time until Seattle voters pass their own. I don’t think it’s really part of the Katie Wilson platform as mayor… but I do see Lefty activists putting on the ballot when they figure out the Seattle mayor only has so much power and even less money. My timeline would be two years maybe?
Rent control is certainly something progressives can vote in that won’t cost a bunch of money. The good thing about rent control is it certainly helps people immediately, even if it’s a longer term turkey.
@tacomee
That is very different from NYC/SF style rent control. The largest difference is that rent can rise arbitrarily for a unit between tenants. Another major difference is that rent increases are controlled by a formula rather than by a rent board, and rent increase caps are still quite high (7-10%).
jd,
Well, rent control is rent control, but some of it certainly is much worse. NYC rent controlled units can be passed down generation to generation. That’s some crazy bullshit there. Mamdani freezing rent increases might be popular at campaign rallies, but actually doing it is a whole other matter.
The problem with passing a rent control measure is if doesn’t work out…. a new, even more draconian form is likely to show up.
In Seattle, I think Mayor Wilson has two years to get something (anything?) done…. after that I think the more progressive folks in Seattle will go all in a rent control and even more taxes on the rich.
@tacomee
That’s quite a defeatist attitude. Reality isn’t a ideological purity test, and Wilson sounds like she will be relatively pragmatic.
If she fails I expect Seattle to swing away from progressive politics.
jd,
I think Mayor Wilson will be successful! The problem is the limits of power the mayor’s office has or even city council’s power. The Seattle police are a great example of this. The union and the iron clad contract they have with the City are what control the police. It’s illegal for the Mayor to “defund the police” under the current contact. The contact does expire under Wilson’s term, but the union won’t negotiate with her and can just work under the old contract until a new more “law and order” mayor is elected.
I bring up the SPD just because it shows how limited the Mayor’s power is. Mayor Wilson has to deal with public sector unions, business interests, career bureaucrats, regional boards (Hello Sound Transit and KCRHA) and powerful NGOs. People talk of the “Homeless Industrial Complex”. That’s this huge group of NGOs who deal with the homeless that’s largely funded by the City (and the Feds). They all want money, but have their own ideas and dogma about how to deal with the “homeless problem” thank you very much. Katie Wilson just inherits all of this baggage. Like him or hate him, Harrell was pretty savvy at working with all this. Katie might be good as well. You can’t really fight the beast, you just try to steer it where you want to go.
The one thing Katie that would be very, very bad is go to State legislature and try to get authorization to borrow money long term… something like 50 or 75 year bonds to build ST light rail projects or fund social housing. There’s already pressure to do this sort of borrowing to “get something done” because the current finances are so bleak. That sort of long term debt is never a good idea.
The other wild card in Seattle and Washington State is the voter initiative. Rent control is just the perfect subject for this. The City of Seattle is largely going it own way no matter that the current mayor or government does, so voting in a big change like rent control is appealing to lot of people. I know many of the people who are pushing rent control in Tacoma personally and most of them are pretty NIMBY. They see rent control as a way not to lose the Tacoma they live in. Tacoma added so many apartment buildings and rent just kept on rising. And all the new buildings on Yakima Ave are butt ugly. There’s no way to build “housing affordability” of course, no matter what the past 3 mayors said.
I can see Seattle voters voting in a more Centrist City Government AND rent control on the same ballot.
Here’s maybe the post progressive and yet, largely NIMBY organization in Tacoma. https://indivisibletacoma.net
There are charming streets all over the US. Some are historic. Some are faux new-builds.
People do gravitate to street vibrancy. That was a factor in the proliferation of shopping malls. Of course, shopping malls lack the added dimension of bicyclists, delivery vehicles and even locals driving slowly through — so they feel more empty with the same amount of foot traffic.
That said, there simply is not the demand to warrant making every urban street an active commercial street. Even places like New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco (and those in Europe) have many high density streets with only residential on them. Conversely, an enjoyable commercial street will attract people from way beyond the walkshed — which is why frequent transit is great to have.
Of course an aspect of walkability is having at least one of these active commercial streets within walking distance. So is walkability to regional transit that connects to employment locations. It’s just that not every walkable street can thrive as a commercial street — even in a place like NYC.
Al S.
Sure, there are walkable, charming streets all over the USA. Some of them are even dirt cheap. Here’s a place a few blocks away from Ball State University in Muncie IN. Great duplex, great neighborhood, very walkable. But it doesn’t make the “young urbanist’s 7 USA cities worth living in”.
The problem with urbanism is it’s not market driven. https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/709-W-Riverside-Ave_Muncie_IN_47303_M31184-57277
“shopping malls lack the added dimension of bicyclists, delivery vehicles and even locals driving slowly through”
They lack the vibrancy of being public sidewalks. The only thing you can do is the narrow activity of shopping, or walking back and forth looking like a shopper, and the shops are usually limited to national chains and narrow-market boutiques.
It’s ironic you focus on bicyclists and delivery vehicles, because the biggest feature of a shopping mall is it’s a car-free pedestrian zone with a lot of shops within walking distance. In other words, how we should be building our cities outside the malls!
The shopping center industry pretty much moved towards the “lifestyle center” concept a few decades ago. The traditional shopping mall model of mainly retail and food courts struggle. There are rarely new ones any more and old ones are closing in many places.
The irony is of course that a lifestyle center is similar to a neighborhood commercial street.
tacomee,
Muncie doesn’t make anyone’s list of cities to live in. Saying the problem with urbanism is that it’s not market driven is not only wrong in the sense that that isn’t true, but also stupid. Everything you describe as “market oriented” is just a result of social conditions and conventions in the US. Japan is a capitalist market society that has landed on tons of trains and dense housing as a default way of urban living.
If “market oriented” means “able to be easily and readily accomplished without any structural or political change”, then sure, all urbanists are wrong. But obviously there’s an underlying political and social element of “we should change some parts of our society” in all urbanist talking points.
blumdrew,
Yeah, maybe Muncie doesn’t make anybody’s #1 on the list of places to live. But I happen to like Ball State. It’s possible to live in Munchie and save for retirement earning $50k a year. That’s not possible in Seattle earning $75k a year. Everyone makes their own choices and everyone has to live with them. A large percentage of homeless people in Seattle are seniors who didn’t plan on spending their “golden years” in a tent. But there they are.
Urbanism is absolutely not socialism. In fact mixing the two can be extremely toxic. Let’s look at the worst idea Mayor Katie has…. social housing. Social housing is a pure “triple threat” to the financial health of a city. First there is the extreme high cost of building it. After that is the City pumping money into it to for general upkeep. But the absolute worst thing is City owned property is property tax exempt. That means if 2% of Seattle house was social housing, the City would have 2% less property taxes…. forever. And more social housing you build, the worse off the City’s finances get.
Good urbanism would be the City building housing units for $500k and selling them to qualified mid income home buyers with private financing for say $400k? The City takes a one time loss of $100k a unit, but could build 5 times the housing for same money than social housing could. But the best part of this that the City is not on the hook for upkeep AND the City collects property taxes on every unit. That way the City can recoup its investment over time.
Please don’t tie the “rock” of socialism to urbanism because you’ll only drag urbanism to the bottom of the lake.
“Here’s a place a few blocks away from Ball State University in Muncie IN. Great duplex, great neighborhood, very walkable. But it doesn’t make the “young urbanist’s 7 USA cities worth living in”.”
No one is moving to Muncie, dude. You’re frankly acting delusional here with how much you love to fetishize economically and demographically dying towns on here instead of just admitting that adding density to the place you already live is actually fine and is actually good for you and others who live in the neighborhood.
Reminds me of a child who complains about having to eat broccoli with dinner and says that we should ban broccoli. Yes, a kid will say that because they’re 12 and a 12 year old hasn’t matured enough to realize why broccoli isn’t really actually that bad for them.
Your truly irrational fear of people living closer together in row houses, apartment complexes, or condo towers is downright hilarious when I was just visiting Antwerp, Beligum this last week and yet saw people walking around the neighborhood I was staying in and enjoying life. It was lovely to watch a bunch of kids playing basketball in the local square when I was walking around the area to see what the neighborhood was like. Alongside all the parents of said kids were chatting away at the local bar just a few meters away while sipping on Beligan beers as they talk about what’s going on this week with themselves.
Like this is the future you seem to be scared of instead of embracing it for what it is.
Alongside in Antwerp, there is no irrational fear of having to live closer together with your neighbors. And if you want that lifestyle of space to spare, there’s always Hulshout or Heist-op-den-Berg nearby that’s a 30ish commute by train to central Antwerp. Like that’s the point of exurbs and bedroom communities if you need or want more space.
People want nice walkable neighborhoods here, so maybe stop being so stubborn about it existing here in Seattle.
Let’s look at the worst idea Mayor Katie has…. social housing.
Wait, what? Social housing (otherwise known as public housing) has existed in Seattle for years. The same is true all over the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing). It is pretty hard to find areas that don’t have public housing — maybe extremely desolate ones. Yet somehow this is the mayor’s worst idea?
Right, sure. I’m sure she will also do other crazy things like provide a police department and maintain the roads.
“Right, sure. I’m sure she will also do other crazy things like provide a police department and maintain the roads.”
Or make sure the city’s water is clean and waste is properly disposed of.
Ross Bleakney,
No there’s a BIG difference between low income housing and social housing.
Low income housing is for low income people who really can’t afford much of anything, let alone paying taxes. Low income housing can be held by a government, NGO or even private ownership (section 8). There’s often a property tax break for serving “the least among us”. Seattle, like most big cities is in dire need of more low income housing. I always support building more.
Social housing, as defined by House Our Neighbors, is absolutely not low income housing. It’s publicly owned, rent controlled and open to like 90% of the population (up to 120% of the median income!?!) and is property tax exempt. So social housing costs a lot of tax money to build, puts the city on the hook to maintain it and worst of all, doesn’t pay property taxes to run the City.
So the more social housing Seattle builds, the less property tax is available to run the city? ST3 is what? 25 cents per $1000 in assessed property value? Property taxes are what fund light rail (and a lot of other good stuff). What social housing does is exempt people with money from paying their fare share… but only if they’re like personal buddies with Tiffani McCoy? Because this shit would be like winning the lottery. Who decides this stuff?
I know people look at Europe and Japan is having solutions to America’s problems, but it just doesn’t work that way. You can’t buy a hair dryer in Germany and plug it into an American outlet. We play to the tax rules that are already set up (and being paid). I wonder of McCoy or Mayor Wilson have any grasp of any of this.
there’s a BIG difference between low income housing and social housing
So what? My point is that just about every city in the developed world (and many in the developing world) has social housing. We’ve had it in Seattle for decades. It goes by other names (public housing) but it is the same thing.
You must know people that live in the projects, right? That is social housing.
tacomee,
I don’t even follow your points. Urbanism is just a broad set of ideas that center around the benefits of living in a city. How best to achieve a livable city is a subjective and deeply political question, but it’s one that has historically been linked to socialist politics – at least in the 20th century. You say that it would sink urbanism to socialism, I say what about the history of publicly owned utilities, transit agencies, and sewer districts? Are those not socialist ideas?
Sure, it’s technically possible to do what you describe in Muncie, but I imagine the local job market isn’t great. Few people move for strictly urbanist reasons, most people move for work or family ones. When I was looking for jobs after I finished grad school, I considered places like La Crosse Wisconsin where I have friends and rent is well under $1000 a month. But I couldn’t get a job. I could get one in Seattle, so here I am.
blumdrew,
One of the big problems with Sound Transit is the unholy marriage of a vision of public good though better public transit (that we all agree on) that is being built (and largely designed by I’m afraid) by big “for profit” construction companies and design firms. Almost everything I’ve seen built by Sound Transit seems oversized and too grand for the task at hand (moving people in a city go limited land size). This has happened at ST while everything else in the world has gotten smaller due to technological advancements. Where is the cutting edge tech for light rail? Those huge train stations are something straight out of the old USSR. Maximum concrete, not built to human scale, and styling that’s a mix between parking garage and cemetery vault.
So the dance between social good and big business never ends in America.
You can certainly live wherever you want. But I went over the basic numbers for my niece, a school teacher, who taught in a Tacoma middle school for a couple of years out of college. By moving to another job in the Midwest she likely doubled here life earnings. She did get family help with a down payment for a house…. but by buying a house, capping her housing costs and putting more money into a 403(b) plan…. she’s on track to retire with maybe 2 million dollars. In Tacoma she just “got by” living hand to mouth paying $1700 rent on an apartment that started out as a $1400 “first month special” . The “rent monster” seemed to gobble up any raises she was going to get teaching. Any socialist who isn’t “all in” on home ownership needs to rethink the matter. I don’t trust Big Business one bit. If you don’t think big apartment managers aren’t going to use AI to screw tenets out of every last buck they can, you are asleep at the wheel. I believe citizens need to control their own destinies as much as possible.
Living in town where the center of all social life is the bowling alley isn’t for everybody. But everybody needs to have a reasonable plan for their life.
“One of the big problems with Sound Transit is the unholy marriage of a vision of public good though better public transit (that we all agree on) that is being built (and largely designed by I’m afraid) by big “for profit” construction companies and design firms.”
I’m not following what that has to do with some very urban streets elsewhere not having retail vibrancy.
Anyway, there are many reasons that some Link extensions are so unaffordable. Changing designers isn’t going to save money like changing the vertical profiles from subway to aerial would, for example. As far as project affordability goes with WSLE and Ballard LE, the causes of their higher costs have lots of reasons. — but since the estimates are order of magnitude higher than the other extensions, the blame is likely due to many specific factors. However it always looked ridiculously low back in 2016 to build what they wanted for the amount they said.
I still think much of the public or the Board doesn’t fully understand how much costly digging and shoring of retaining walls is needed for the proposed deep stations.
If I was going to point to a reasonably affordable Midwest urban alternative, I would point to St Louis. It’s tragic how its modern history has spiraled it downward. But it’s still possible to live very cheaply in some walkable areas with light rail transit access there.
If someone can deal with lake effect snow, Cleveland is another option. And while s bit more expensive, Minneapolis and Chicago are still cheaper than Seattle is.
Muncie is a typical college town. Living there would be similar to living in any college town — but with Midwest weather extremes. I will add that small cities in Indiana and other Great Lakes states tend to be more compact that here in the Northwest as surrounding farmland is valuable, which makes them walkable even though they can have terrible local transit.
tacomee,
All of that about Sound Transit is sort of besides the point, though yes there are plenty of reasons to be critical of it. Though I’m not sure “too close to USSR transit” is one of them. Metro systems designed and built by the Soviets are some of the best in the world, particularly in terms of interesting station design. Moscow is the obvious example, but Tashkent would do as well.
And I’m not opposed to living in the Midwest, nor do I need to be convinced of it. I’m glad your relative found a fulfilling job in an affordable place they like. But my line of work and interests (transit and urban planning) is biased heavily towards places that are growing fast or have well-funded transit. There’s only a handful of Midwestern cities that meet that criteria.
Al S.
Most ST projects look like a concrete company designed them. How long has automated smaller light rail been around? You’d think the ST staff would have said, nope, let’s do something smaller and automate the dang trains at some point. But I get the feeling nobody said no very often.
Then there is realistic scope and scale of doing anything in Greater Seattle. Portland has MAX and I’ve ridden it pretty much everywhere but Hillsboro/Beaverton. It works! Sure it’s a little slow and clunky, but so is the rest of Portland honestly. Where Sound Transit goes wrong is the belief that West Seattle and Ballard are somehow different than Gresham and Clackamas. Would you rather have light rail running on the surface to Ballard 2 years ago or…. nothing for the 20 years? You heard it here first. Sound Transit will never build light rail to Ballard. Were on earth would the 30 to 40 billion needed come from?
There’s no future proofing anything really. Just quit farting around and build the damn trains in next 10 years or give up. Imagine a bus only lane on 1-5 with driverless buses flying between Tacoma, the airport, Seattle and Everett at 85 miles an hour? Google could easily arrange that tomorrow.
blumdrew,
Let’s put the job part of aside for a minute. Muncie is an urban planner’s dream! Much of the Midwest is. It’s also a big opportunity for Lefty from-the-ground up politics. The reason Liberals aren’t likely to come into power any time soon is the demographics of the Left packing into a few Coastal Cities. Houston is a beast of a town with sprawl from Hell to breakfast… but there’s much more opportunity there than say, Boston for people like me.
Al S.
St. Louis a great City! It’s got to be among the DIY capitals of the US. I did some tile work for a guy I worked with in Seattle… a fellow construction guy who loved BBQ and let’s say…. felt more at home in St. Louis than the PNW. The dude landed a cool rundown 4 square house for cheap and restored it. A 3 million dollar house in the right Seattle ‘hood.
“How long has automated smaller light rail been around? You’d think the ST staff would have said, nope, let’s do something smaller and automate the dang trains at some point.”
I wonder the same thing. I think it was clear in 2013-2015 before ST3 was even packaged that ST was opposed to considering any other rail technology beyond what they already operated.
I think it was probably more that the current vehicle types were seen as a “baseline” in those studies for “representative” purposes to get an idea of alignments and costs. Then over time the project development environment just assumed that no other technology options needed to be considered and locked them in.
I can’t explain or defend why ST staff or board did that. Certainly, the automated technology manufacturer reps would have probably been more than happy to come in and help show how it would save money and what it could look like. Automated light rail or metro systems have been in operation for several decades all over the world in places as close as Vancouver.
It’s truly baffling to me. It’s kind of like they prefer to blame the higher costs of everything but themselves, even though they’re the ones to blame for ignoring automated line alternatives as far back as 2013 or even further back. It’s like watching the rail system version of the Keystone cops — except the resulting costs are not entertaining or funny.
Since this is an open thread, here is my version of the ST 2026 Service Plan:
510:
I would keep this route as proposed, but I would instead improve it, as there’s many people wanting to keep a one-seat ride to Seattle from Snohomish County, I’ve been on the 510 and 515 and their ridership isn’t quite bad, at least I’ve seen it, so here’s my plan to improve it, first I would remove the Downtown Everett loop. Second I would now have it deviate off I-5 between 128th and 164th and have it go on Ash Way, 134th, and 128th, serving Mariner and Ash Way park and rides (similar to what Ross proposed in 2018), it would duplicate the 201/202, providing 7.5 minute frequencies between Everett and Ash Way (with the exception of South Everett Freeway Station), as the 512 has been declining possibly due to the redundancy with the 201/202, I would do this change in order to delete the 512, half the riders would continue to Seattle, the other half would transfer to light rail, also the light rail does not travel on I-5 entirely because it has to deviate to UW and Capitol Hill, so this is another good reason, thirdly I would add a NE 45th St Freeway Station stop, as it’s dead, and caters well to the U District. Then I would add all-day 15 minute frequencies to the route, with weekend service, and I’ll add overnight service on this route instead of making a new one. Overnight service would stop at Lynnwood, Shoreline South/148th, and Northgate. Keep the freeway stop at Mountlake Terrace, as people using the garage would still go here, and surface parking would be for light rail. It’s also dying.
512:
Delete it, it’s nothing but redundant at this point, people also aren’t using this as often as before, as less than half of the survey responses use this route if I recall.
513:
Delete this route, it’s ridership is low, I did see it one time have a lot of boardings at Lynnwood, Eastmont P&R is dead, so we’ll discontinue service entirely here, like how they’re planning to remove the deviation, why not just remove the route entirely?
515:
Delete it, it’s already planned bruh.
522:
I would keep it like how ST proposes it, except I would have it go on 98th/185th instead of Woodinville Dr and Kaysner Way (like the future Stride), it would also be truncated at UW Bothell/Cascadia College, instead people could use the 931 (which only runs during peak), but we’ll see how Metro responds to this, if they refuse to cooperate, we can restore the connection to Woodinville… This time with full service.
532:
I would delete it, instead people using the 535 more often (which would run frequently now), and use the 201/202, 903/904/905, and the 510, this route is also very redundant, so eliminate it for a better 535.
535:
First, I would remove the Alderwood Mall connection, instead running on I-5 to/from I-405 to/from Lynnwood City Center, then I would remove the Downtown Bellevue loop, and finally I would add all-day 15 minute bus service to the route, it would also run 15 minutes on weekends, because if we want BRT on I-405, we got to have it now to test ridership.
542:
Have the route continue operation as this is faster than a 2 Line ride to the UW from Redmond, it also doubles frequency to the survey’s most used route (the 545), it would run along SR 520 straightly to Bear Creek P&R to Redmond TC along Avondale and Redmond ways instead of using W Lake Sammamish Pkwy, this makes the routing more efficient and fast. Increase service every 15 minutes all-day and weekends, another person pointed out that this route is faster by transferring at UW to rail rather than a one-seat ride.
545:
I would instead have the route go through SR 520 to Bear Creek P&R then to Redmond TC rather than deviating into Downtown Redmond to Redmond TC then to Bear Creek P&R (like the 542) this makes the routing straighter and more efficient, I think about the fact if this is needed or the 542, I think they are both needed as this is the most popular route among survey responses, so I’ll increase service to 15 minutes all-day, including weekends. This and the 542 would make every 7.5 minute service along SR 520, dealing with crowding and the 556’s loss.
550:
Delete this route as planned.
552:
The overnight route running between Redmond and Seattle, this time serving all 2 Line stations from Westlake to Downtown Redmond.
554/556:
Keep the proposal as what ST proposes, except I would have the 556 use the 554’s path from Issaquah TC to Issaquah Highlands P&R without any new stops, keeping it as an express, this is my favorite proposal out of what ST proposes.
560:
Add frequency to the route every 15 minutes all-day 7 days a week, eliminate the routing from Burien to Westwood Village (which is redundant with the H), and have the route stop at Tukwila International Blvd Station instead of SeaTac/Airport Station, chopping off time with a 1 Line transfer. It also is consistent with the Stride S1 Line.
566:
Delete this route, of course it’s going to be a three seat ride with the new service, but it can be made up with the new frequencies and reliability of this new service I will explain.
567:
This new route runs between Rainier Beach and Puyallup, it starts at Rainier Beach Station, goes to Rainier Ave S to Renton TC, then continuing on Rainier (which becomes SR 167) to replace the 566’s path, it would then continue on the 578’s old path to Puyallup, becoming a Sounder feeder, which will be more crucial once express service is deleted, this route runs every 20 minutes (10 minutes with Sounder) all-day and weekends, continuing to Seattle via a 1 Line transfer. It also provides faster service between Rainier Beach and Renton. Similar to Ross’s proposed 588.
574:
Eliminate route, having the money go into more 594 service which duplicates this route.
577:
Delete this route, which I think is cheaper to add a 594 stop in Federal Way than to continue this route (like the 574).
578:
Delete this route, instead using the Sounder, or 567 from Puyallup/Auburn to Seattle, between Federal Way and Seattle use the 594, and between Federal Way and Auburn use the 181 which will run frequently in the future.
580:
Instead, delete this route as planned to save costs, instead of having the money go to a 596 extension.
586:
Replace this as planned with better 594 service, and a 1/2 Line transfer in Downtown Seattle.
590:
Delete this route with better 594 service.
591:
The night version of the southern portion of the 1 Line, runs between Seattle and Federal Way, it would serve all stations from Westlake to Federal Way, now serving Rainier Valley.
592:
Replace this route with better 594 service.
594:
Add a Federal Way stop to the 594 as many propose, have the route run every 15 minutes 7 days a week and overnight. Have the route end at Lakewood TC off-peak, but all trips during peak would go back down to DuPont Station (like the 592), this replaces many expresses and increases travel time, but again could be made up with the route running every 15 minutes.
595:
Delete this route, as Pierce Transit provides better service in the area, and the 594 will be improved.
596:
Have the route extend to Lakewood Station via SR 410, 167, 161, 512, and Pacific Hwy SW. It would stop at Puyallup Station and South Hill P&R to make up express service lost on the 580. Frequencies and service would stay the same.
Sorry for the long reply, feedback is welcome.
Recap:
Routes that are new:
552, 567, and 591
Routes that are deleted:
512, 513, 515, 532, 550, 554, 566, 574, 577, 578, 580, 586, 590, 592, and 595
That’s A LOT of routes, but I hope this can save costs on more and better service, about 15 out of 24 routes are deleted, that’s more than half, which is around 62.5% of service reinvested.
Routes that are revised:
510, 522, 535, 542, 545, 556, 560, 594, and 596
This cuts down service from 24 routes to 12 routes, 50 percent less service, but I’m sure simplifying the system gets us a better experience, and prepares us for the future (probably buses won’t exist after ST3). It’s also crazy that this cuts down to 1 peak route (crazy), and the rest run every 15 minutes, if a lot of cash is left, then ST could consider making the 596 all-day frequent, but it also depends on ridership and if they want it. I would also consider making the 594’s tail to DuPont Station all-day frequent, but it depends on the reasons I said.
“567:
This new route runs between Rainier Beach and Puyallup, it starts at Rainier Beach Station, goes to Rainier Ave S to Renton TC, then continuing on Rainier (which becomes SR 167) to replace the 566’s path,”
Ending a route at Rainier Beach seems a great idea at a macro level. The problem I see if simply that the station is not laid out well as a route terminus. I’ve suggested that bus circulation at the station needs a focused effort and maybe a better on-street bus transit transfer center — but others don’t think it’s needed.
I see another question about travel time: For a trip from South Renton to Downtown Seattle, what’s the fast path outside of Route 101? Would it be faster for a bus to offer transfers or Rainier Beach to the 1 Line or to South Bellevue and the 2 Line?
Maybe this 567 bus should hop onto the coming 405 express lanes and exit at South Bellevue. ST has estimated that it will be a 14 minute ride from CID to South Bellevue as opposed to a 20 minute ride to Rainier Beach from CID.
I’m not saying that the routing should be done. I’m just curious which path would be the fastest.
True what you said on the second to last paragraph, but think about the time from Renton to Rainier Beach as opposed to Renton to South Bellevue, anyways I also don’t think Rainier Beach is a well laid terminal, but it lacks bus service, and this could be a chance. Anyways I take back what I said about the 522’s truncation in Bothell.
Make sure to send this to ST, as that’s about the only way it has a chance for consideration. I don’t have much to say about all the routes, but a couple points:
“556: Keep the proposal as what ST proposes, except I would have the 556 use the 554’s path from Issaquah TC to Issaquah Highlands P&R without any new stops, keeping it as an express”
Metro has already deleted the 208 in its final restructure plan based on ST’s promise to backfill it. The Metro routes are all expresses from the Highlands P&R to Mercer Island with no stops in central Issaquah, and the already-implemented 203 which serves north Issaquah but not central Issaquah. Reverting to the current routing would force Metro to scramble and potentially degrade its proposed routes, or it would leave the southwest Issaquah shopping area and planned regional center with no bus service.
Then re-route one of the buses into the heart of Issaquah, as I think three overlapping buses between Issaquah Highlands and Mercer Island is too much.
Two of the routes combine for 15-minute service. That’s the minimum for good transit frequency, and a major step forward for Issaquah. The third one is peak-only for capacity relief.
” For a trip from South Renton to Downtown Seattle, what’s the fast path outside of Route 101? Would it be faster for a bus to offer transfers or Rainier Beach to the 1 Line or to South Bellevue and the 2 Line?”
Transferring at Rainier Beach is out because it would add 10+ minutes to travel time. Transferring at South Bellevue would probably do the same. That’s why Metro has so strongly rejected any attempt to truncate the 101; it’s one of less than a dozen routes that’s still in Metro Connects 2050, and half of the others are small van routes or coverage routes so they barely count.
Consulting ST and Metro schedules:
901am: Route 101 departs from Renton TC and arrives at Union Street at 932am–31 minutes scheduled trip time.
900am: 1 Line train leaves Rainier Beach Station and arrives at Westlake Station at 927am–27 minutes scheduled trip time.
There is absolutely no time advantage to forcing transfers at Rainier Beach Station. Othello Station is about 5-6 minutes further and has more housing and shopping, but even that node offers no time advantage.
The 542 should focus on connecting UW to downtown Redmond because downtown Redmond is where the ridership is. Bear Creek P&R is awkward to access and gets so little ridership, I would argue they should simply close the P&R entirely and sell the land for redevelopment. Agree that the 542 should run more often, though.
“I would argue they should simply close the P&R entirely and sell the land for redevelopment”
Something more walkable than that horrendous Fred Meyer, please!
I entirely agree, especially given the P&R several blocks away at the Southeast Redmond Link station.
Any park and ride lot near a new Link station that has a big parking garage should be assessed about whether it should continue as a park and rude lot or not. It’s a less valuable use of the land near a Link station than a TOD is in the long run.
Yeah, I wish the routes terminated at marymoor village instead now. Pretty frustrating to not be able to get back to the car without walking or an Uber if I’m coming back past 10pm, especially for such a huge garage. At least extend the current 545 to there after link stops running.
Running an all-day bus from Snohomish County to Downtown Seattle is a bad idea. The 510 is fast because the bus gets on the express lanes (where there are HOV lanes). Traffic is terrible through Seattle when the bus is forced to run on the main line (and there are no HOV lanes). Likewise, making a bunch of detours along the way (Ash Way, the freeway stop at 45th) would make the bus considerably slower. You could be basically duplicating Link at great cost and marginal benefit.
The reason the 512 has lost riders is because a lot of them are taking Link. Lynnwood was by far the biggest stop. Mountlake Terrace, 145th and 45th also had plenty of riders. Basically half the ridership has been replaced with Link. I’m not talking about two-seat rides — I’m talking a direct replacement. Instead of taking the 512 from Mountlake Terrace to downtown the riders take Link instead. There are also people that used to drive to Ash Way Park & Ride. I’m sure many of them just drive to Lynnwood Station instead (which means more than half are taking Link).
Yes, the 512 is too similar to the 201/202. The answer is simple and a lot less disruptive: Have the 512 skip Ash Way. This would save a considerable amount of time. That’s because the Ash Way Park & Ride has direct HOV ramps to the south but not the north. Ash Way Park & Ride to Lynnwood is fast. Ash Way Park & Ride to Everett is slow. Riders from the park & ride would still have express buses to the Lynnwood Station (the 201/202 and 513). Riders would still have one-seat rides to Everett (via the 201/202).
I would extend the 512 if possible. This would require more service hours. While skipping Ash Way would save money I’m not sure it would save enough to pay for extensions in Everett. But if possible I would have it take over one (or more) of the Everett Transit routes. For example it could branch and take over the 4 and 19 (both of which end at Everett Station). This would provide more one-seat rides to Lynnwood (and thus more two-seat rides to Seattle). At the same time, even half-hour service along these corridors would be an improvement compared to what Everett Transit offers.
Other than that the plans for ST Express in Snohomish County are fine. The 513 makes more sense as a bidirectional express given the job density around Boeing. I’m a little concerned about the half hour frequency. If you are commuting and are not concerned about the start time this is OK. But that isn’t the case with shift workers which I assume make up a high proportion of the jobs around Boeing. Speaking of which, they should consider making a loop close to the various plants after getting to Seaway. This would save riders from taking the Boeing shuttle(s). This could be done outbound in the morning and inbound in the evening. I could also see adding another stop along Casino Road, close to 5th. There are a fair number of apartments nearby.
That is about it for the north end.
I agree why the 512 has lost ridership (as less than half survey responses take it), and when I get on it, the ridership is low. I once saw a 201 or 202 bus get crowded and left nothing for the 512 at Lynnwood. Though I do think adding frequent service to the 905 and weekend service is a good idea (taking over the 201/202), even a lady driving the 905 seemed to agree with me, but I bet she had no idea how redundant that would be, and what about ridership in Stanwood? Probably going to be horrible, though she also agreed with me that the 907’s extension to Paine Field was redundant with the 8, she didn’t mention the Swift Green though, I think she has the same POV with transit as me, which you don’t have.
Also by Seaview, I think you meant Seaway.
Yes I did. I’ll correct it.
Where are you getting the survey responses from? Michael, it might be worth an article on what the survey responses tell us.
One thing to keep in mind, survey respondents aren’t necessarily representative of the entire ridership base or community. And the survey didn’t allow people to comment on routes ST isn’t proposing to change, or alternatives ST doesn’t have. I emailed my feedback to servicechanges at soundtransit.org as Jack suggested (otherwise I would have emailed them to the main ST info address), but most respondents wouldn’t know that’s a possibility or wouldn’t get around to it. So the responses give incomplete information about what the respondents think and want. Still, they are the closest thing to “this is what riders told us they care about and want”.
Keeping the 545 after the 2 starts running to Seattle seems quite fanciful to me.
I’m not sure about the routing of the 542. I don’t know why it goes up to 85th Street. I think the best routing would be to just go from Bear Creek Park-and-Ride to Downtown Redmond Station, and then take Leary Way (or maybe Redmond Way) to 520. Either way, I don’t see how this route’s ridership could possibly justify doubling the frequency.
Keeping the 545 after the 2 starts running to Seattle seems quite fanciful to me.
Yet that is the tentative plan. The thing that bothers me the most about the plans is that there are no suggested changes for the headways. I get the value in an express from Redmond to downtown. You save some time. It is a judgement call as to whether it is worth it or not. But why is bus to the UW running less often than the bus to downtown? At the very least they should flip the headways. Doing so would save service money. It also makes sense. If you can time the bus to downtown (that runs every half hour) then great. If not you take the bus running to the UW and transfer. Or you take Link directly from Redmond to downtown. But that idea doesn’t work in reverse. It doesn’t make sense to take the bus to downtown and then ride the train back to the UW. Nor does it make sense to ride Link all the way around. The frequencies are backwards.
Yeah, keeping the 545 is especially bad during off-peak hours when frequency is limited. For example, on weekend evenings after around 8 PM, the current schedule has the 542 and 545 each running once per hour. Running each once per hour makes for really bad service vs. the alternative of running only the 542 every half hour, especially with riding the 2-line all the way from downtown available as an additional option for those that don’t want to wait for a half-hourly bus.
At the very least, if they want to cut service during certain hours of the day, they should be (after the full 2-line is complete) dropping the 545 before cutting frequency down to once per hour.
I did a basic analysis for an article I did a while back about ST Express changes with 10 minutes or less of delay. This one is particularly baffling because in every scenario I looked at (relying on frequent 542) no 542 + 1 or 2 Line trip more than 10 minutes of delay. But beyond that, this fact is hiding a lot of cases where travel time is in the green! If you’ve been on a 545 in the afternoon, you’ll know it doesn’t take a lot for it to wait 10 minutes just to turn left onto 5th. I’ve waited there 20 minutes. Absolutely throwing time and money away.
Deleting 545 could easily double 542 frequencies. There’d be money left over probably even if they also restore the 544. The evening 542 could go from hourly to 20 minutes maybe, but at minimum 30 minutes. And with intentional Link timing, even infrequent 542 trips can all add less than 10 minutes delay.
For example, on weekend evenings after around 8 PM, the current schedule has the 542 and 545 each running once per hour.
That is a strong argument for just eliminating the 545. The 545 is luxury service. It is faster than Link for a few trips but not that many. Even then it isn’t dramatically faster. In contrast the 542 is dramatically faster for a trip to the UW and places north. The 542 should be the baseline service while the 545 could supplement it when it is crowded or just because you want faster service (much as the 15 supplements the RapidRide D).
I see that as the case for the 544. It covers some of the few trips that are currently faster on the 545. SLU in general is a pain to reach from the eastside.
I see that as the case for the 544. It covers some of the few trips that are currently faster on the 545. SLU in general is a pain to reach from the eastside.
Agreed. The 544 would complement Link and the other buses. It would run during peak, when it could take advantage of the HOV connection to the express lanes. The rest of the day you would just run the 542.
What was the 544? I don’t remember that route.
The 544, as proposed, had multiple things that undermined its usefulness.
1) The proposed 544 doesn’t really cover all of SLU. It takes 520->I-5->Denny->Fairview, rendering it mostly an express to Fred Hutch. To reach somewhere like Westlake/Denny, you have to either walk from Fairview, at which point, the walk isn’t that much longer starting at Westlake Station. (This issue could be mitigated by having the bus turn west on Harrison or Fairview, rather than loop around Fred Hutch and ending).
2) The proposed 544 contains a detour to serve South Kirkland P&R, undermining a lot of the time savings.
3) The proposed 544 runs only during the peak hours, when traffic on I-5 and the 520 Portage Bay Bridge is likely to be bad. There is no transit priority in any of it. The Stewart St. exit off I-5 also gets clogged with cars during the AM peak, and the proposed 544 would have to just sit in it.
When you add up all of these together, I’m not convinced that the 544 is actually faster than just taking 542->Link to reach a point like Westlake/Denny. For instance, traffic on Montlake is offset by avoiding traffic on I-5 and the Stewart St. exit ramp. The wait for the train is offset by skipping the South Kirkland P&R detour. The walk is shorter with the 544, but not that much shorter – we’re talking about a 0.4 miles vs. 0.2 miles – an 0.2 mile difference.
The advantage of the 544 increases as you go north, but only to a limited degree because the 542->Link station still allows the option to take a bus or streetcar that last bit, rather than walk, and during peak hours, everything is very frequent. It’s only Fred Hutch – or somewhere very near there – that the advantage of the 544 looks clear, but that doesn’t feel like enough to justify running the route.
This also raises another issue, which is who the 544’s detour to South Kirkland P&R is supposed to serve. If the person is transferring to/from the 255 bus, the detour is not necessary, as they can make the transfer at Yarrow Point or Evergreen Point. That leaves only the 250 and 249 buses left. From the north, the biggest activity center of the 250 is Kirkland Transit Center, which also has the 255. From the south, you’re talking about Bellevue Transit Center, in which case, just riding the 2-line to Westlake Station and walking/transferring from there seems quicker than riding a bus South Kirkland P&R to transfer to the 544 bus. That leaves the usefulness of the 544’s detour relegated to only people who live in specific (low ridership) locations served only by the 250 or 249, and, of course, people who drive to the P&R to catch the bus.
It’s the latter case that I think the 544 is really intended to serve, as there is a slice of people who will only ride transit if they drive to it and only if it’s a one-seat ride from home to office, with the one-seat-ness at least as important, if not more so, than the actual travel time (as, if they are really in a hurry on a given day, they will just drive themselves all the way). The question is, is it worth spending scare transit dollars to bend over backwards to serve such people, especially given that many of them work for large tech companies which already do just that via private shuttles. I think it’s better to let Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. pay for commuter shuttles between their SLU campuses and the eastside, and focus the transit money on making the core routes – the 255, 542, 40, C-line (or hypothetical H-line extension to SLU), etc. – run as often as possible.
Oh, and another example of how the 544’s South Kirkland P&R detour is dumb…in the time it takes to make the detour, the bus is quite likely to get passed by either a 542 or 545. So, a rider could theoretically leave a few minutes later, hop on a 542/545 and end up on the same 544 bus, via a transfer at Evergreen Point. So, literally the only reason to take the 544 all the way though is not even travel time, but pure transfer aversion, and nothing else.
Trainspotting opportunity Monday and Tuesday 4:30pm-9:30pm: simulated 2 Line trains will alternate with 1 Line trains every 4 minutes. The simulated trains will say “Out of Service” and stop at stations but not open their doors. A chance to observe the appearance of European/New York frequency in action!
Too bad it’s just an appearance, and Sound Transit isn’t actually using this to help riders.
This is going to suck. Just wait til Ballard Link, after Cross Lake the rest of the link expansions are cooked.
First ST has to make the basic train coordination can be reliable. This is just a 2-day test, so two days won’t make much of a difference for passengers overall. They’ll get everyday 4-minute frequency in six months or so, and then it will be years and decades of ultra-frequent service.
It is a good period for trainspotting! I saw a 4 car out of service train at Westlake yesterday evening and then two 1 car trains between International District and Judkins Park on the way in this morning. This was the first time that I’ve actually seen trains in motion between International District and South Bellevue.
At International District Station, is it theoretically possible in the future to replace that recently installed middle pocket track with an additional center platform exclusively for transfers between 1 line (south leg) and 2 line (eastside leg)?
Perhaps with emergency exits using at grade crossings to the remaining side platforms (which would remain the primary boarding/alighting platforms). There appears to be enough space for a center platform due to the former bus bypass lane.
I suspect the opening of the 2 line is going to raise this issue sooner rather than later when people get pissed having to go up, over and down to transfer with luggage, in a wheelchair and/or just missing a train.
There’s more than enough space for a center platform. In fact, most MAX center platforms are more narrow than what’s available there.
In fact, they already had a temporary platform there for a while during one of the maintenance interruptions.
The problem is going to be convincing SoundTransit they have other options for turning out of service trains operating between the two OMF. One option would be to just schedule a certain number of trains to turn into the other line when they get to Lynnwood. So, need something to go to regular maintenance in SoDo? Assign it to a slot (at TriMet they use “train numbers” for the schedule slots – even the bus numbers are “train numbers”) that starts out as a line 2 train but ends up switching to a line 1 train, ending at SoDo at the end of its scheduled slot.
If something needs to be moved that can’t be scheduled, then move it during the nearly half hour gap between the 5:09 am train and the 5:36 am train.
And how often will they need to do this with a full 4 car train anyway? It seems like there should be enough space to hold a single car on a reduced length center track. It looks to me as though there’s an entire block between the actual track junction and the start of the ID platforms.
I always thought that down escalators would get installed at the ID/C Stetion with East Link funds. I was wrong.
They appear easy to install. Just replace the end stairs with a down escalator and add new stairs nearby. New stairs can even be built as switchback stairs at the landings.
There’s just not plans and funds to do it.
And of course the very first thing that ST puts on a cost-cutting list is down escalators. That shows how much ST values riders with vertical mobility challenges from arthritis — or riders with luggage.
They expect riders to use elevators (instead of escalators) which can be out of service due to overuse — because of course there isn’t a down escalator to use instead! Doh!
Yes this borders on a tirade.
ST mused about converting CID1 station to center platform in ST3. It didn’t pursue that either.
On the 12th day to Federal Way Sound Transit gave to us “Arrivals” for every bus.
Which elected officials are going to do speeches at Federal Way Link Extension, and who from the blog is coming?
Certainly the King County Executive, ST board members who represent South King, the Mayors and Councilmembers of Federal Way, Des Moines, and Kent. Maybe the President of Highline College or Commissioners for the Port of Seattle.
As far as I know I’m going to the opening, so you might see me filming.
I will be riding on opening day from Seattle. I will have a few friends with me who are all design/ engineering professionals — who will be with me to observe and discuss both the good and bad of the new stations.
However, we are skipping the speeches. Instead, we want the commemorative swag so we will arrive at a good time to hit the booths!!
Cool, I’ll also be with friends. Look for someone with a cap backwards, a Tate McRae hoodie, and cargo pants, and it might be me. Me and my friends will be recording the extension opening from the operator view so people don’t have to see a crowded train.
STB is too informal to have tallied up yet which staff are attending on opening day. But I’m planning to be there. It starts early this time: speeches at 9:30am, service around 11am, and festivals at the FW, Star Lake, and KDM stations 11-3. That’s early for me so I’m not sure what time I’m going. I’ll take the 577/578 from downtown. Other options are Link+A or Link+574, but I don’t want to ride Link the morning before opening. If I end up going after 11, I’ll just take Link all the way down.
Sam will want to know whether we’ll have a media preview ride article. So far I haven’t seen anything about if/when a preview might be.
I’m the one in the flat cap, probably gray or brown tweed.
Okay, I’ll be excited to meet all of you :)
Spotted a train standing still on the East Link track next to I-5. I think it was 1 car. And there was a couple workers east of the floating bridge.
Cool!
Today’s trial is very important. The outcome will not only clarify for ST how to interline both 1 and 2 Lines on a typical day, it will also provide field results on where future potential system failures might happen and whether there is surplus capacity available for managing things like how to handle special crowds.
SOV drivers are having a cow about the reconfiguration of the
I-405/SR522 interchange to
accommodate the
STRide base/HOV/Express lane work and the new traffic lights.
Oh The Humanity!
Misleading flyer in the mail today.
“Washington hospitals are facing a nursing shortage. Nurses must travel from across the state to fill vacancies…. Washington firefighters often deploy to other regions within the state to combat wildfires. — But the cost of apartment rentals and hotels are out of reach for Washington firefighters and nurses. Now legislators in Olympia are considering increasing taxes on short-term rentals, affordable housing for our first responders and medical professionals who keep us safe and healthy. — Keep short-term rentals affordable for the people who take care of us. –Learn more at AffordableVacationsWA. — Paid for by Airbnb Helps Our State Thrive (HOST) PAC. Top five contributors: Airbnb, Inc.”
Um, over 99% of short-term renters are not nurses or firefighters on deployment.
When I worked at Harborview and we got traveling nurses, their agency paid for their short-term apartment. If I remember it had a long-term apartment that nurses cycled through. Later working for an organization that sends people to emergency responses, the organization paid for their lodging. Since it’s Washington state that recruits non-local firefighters to help with its biggest wildfires, I assume the state pays for their lodging and makes arrangements with hotels to expect them.
And I doubt these short-term rentals are “affordable” in the sense of being available to lower-income people: their rent over a month is higher than a year-long rental would be. That’s why landlords and condo owners are taking long-term rentals off the market to use them as short-term rentals.
Cirque du Soleil will be at Marymoor Park throughout February. I was hoping to take the 2 Line to see it. However I see some concerns.
1. Will 2 Line simulation be far enough along to run trains later so I won’t be stranded? (current last train is 9:32 pm.) Will I need to instead choose a matinee?
2. Will I be able to walk between Link and the tent, or will they prevent that path because ST doesn’t want their garage to be for remote parking for the show?
These are reasonable questions. Who can answer them?
I’m pretty sure the path will be open.
For the marymoor concerts, they offered some later trains after the show. Maybe they’d do the same for this?
WSDOT announced this morning in multiple outlets that Renton-to-Bellevue project won’t finish until summer of 2027.
WSDOT Blog: Renton to Bellevue project update: New timeline