Friday Roundtable: Incorrect Signs

70 Replies to “Friday Roundtable: Incorrect Signs”

1. Hah!

   Perhaps the airport icon pointing toward Federal Way was directing private pilots toward Auburn Municipal Airport?

2. On this note, outside the C/ID station the system map shows the full 2 Line. Someone who just arrived in Seattle at King Street Station trying to get to the East side could easily see that and think “great, I can just get on a train here”. It seems phenomenally stupid to me to have a line advertised that isn’t open yet anywhere, and the only reason I can think that it was done is they had to update signs for Federal Way and figured they’d save a few bucks by doing the 2 Line ones at the same time. It’s stuff like this that makes me think no one at Sound Transit has ever tried to ride an unfamiliar transit system in their life. Having a line that isn’t open yet on official wayfinding documentation outside the first station many riders are likely to encounter is beyond frustrating.

   I’ve only been in Seattle for a few months, but the number of oafish Sound Transit choices I’ve seen is already way too high.

   1. In other places there is a sticker over the 2 line connection saying that is “coming soon”. Perhaps an impatient person peeled the sticker off?

      1. Maybe. But we probably shouldn’t have a wayfinding system that is one sticker falling off away from being completely inaccurate. And that’s not even getting into the fact that having the 2 line on North Seattle stations is also confusing to riders.

      2. I’ve seen quite a few system map signs that have had all of the stickers removed – even one of the maps on the platform at SeaTac. I think the stickers are a fine temporary measure but transit security or other staff should let ST know when a sticker needs to be replaced.

      3. I haven’t seen any stickers removed, and we still haven’t confirmed whether the one at CID was an old map with a lost sticker or a new map.

      4. When riding on a train to Federal Way last Saturday, some passengers tried to remove stickers of segments that were already opened (Downtown Redmond). It looked like an older diagram too. They couldn’t pull the sticker off.

         Maybe ST staff need to take time to check and update the line diagrams in all the trains as a maintenance thing. The next openings are still at least four months away.

   2. ST has a new poster talking about how it’s changing the station signs for Federal Way, and how it’s putting the full 2 Line on the maps even though it won’t start until mid 2026. I saw it last week at the top of the Roosevelt south elevator. Some of the Westlake signs said Federal Way while others still said Angle Lake. (And Federal Way varied from “Federal Way Downtown” to “Federal Way DT” to “Fed Way” depending on the available width.)

      I haven’t seen any 2 Line changes on maps yet. I’m wondering if ST will really show Judkins Park and Mercer Island stations, the only two that haven’t opened yet. Maybe it will put a new sticker on the new maps over them.

      Visitors and occasional riders will certainly be confused by maps showing unopened 2 Line service and all the Downtown signs pointing in different directions. We’ll have to help them and keep track of how many confused people we encounter. There’s another recent map of interim bus connections between the 1 and 2 Lines, so if that stays, there may be two kinds of 1/2 Line maps with contradictory information.

   3. IMO, the 550 should just be rebranded as the 2 Line train replacement bus until the 2 Line opens.

      1. I’ve suggested that in the past — but only if it’s operating only as a bus bridge.

         Route 550 and 2 Lines run very differently. 2 Line goes all the way to Lynnwood! 550 can get a rider close to Old Bellevue. So I’m ok leaving it alone, especially when the system and all the signage has to change too.

3. I’m fine with the routes being labeled by their last stop so long as ST removes the incorrect/confusing monickers of downtown/city center.

   Better platform signs at SODO south would be Lynwood via Downtown, Federal Way
   Or at Northgate, Lynwood, Federal Way via Downtown

   1. ST did finally remove the word “Station” from audio announcements and onboard displays, fifteen years after we started complaining about them. (“You don’t need to say ‘Beacon Hill Station’; trains only stop at stations.”) So maybe it will fix the Downtown/City Center issue in a future wayfinding upgrade a few years from now. But hopefully ST will do it within a year.

   2. Lynnwood will have multiple stations so it doesn’t make sense to just cast it as one station forever. Also City Center is a name that will stick forever as TOD continues it’s course and should be kept. Same for federal way. The name downtown is obsolete. Seattle is Seattle downtown for all transit related purposes.

      1. “Lynnwood” and “Lynnwood Mall” would be just fine. Just because Lynnwood may have two stations by 2095 doesn’t mean the name should be misleading now. Stations shouldn’t reflect a potential future ambition that may or may not be realized. They should reflect how users of the system will understand their meaning. Using “Downtown” and “City Center” is needlessly confusing and offers no real benefit.

      2. It should just be “Lynnwood”. There is no need to put “city center” or “downtown”. The lack of a modifier suggests the main one. L. A. has several airports but the main one is just called “L. A. International Airport” (no modifier). Other stations can have “Lynnwood” or leave it off. It is unlikely there will be multiple “Alderwood Mall”, “Ash Way” or “Mariner” stations so there would be no ambiguity.

         It is worth noting that Mountlake Terrace did that. That is the name of the station (no modifier) even though the City Hall isn’t that far away. It is quite possible that eventually 220th is added as an infill station. It will be the second station in Mountlake Terrace. Lynnwood should have done the same.

   3. Even now, ST uses “Lynnwood” as well as “Lynnwood City Center” interchangeably. The electronic arrival signs and electronic train headers just say “Lynnwood”, for example.

      The mere fact that ST today drops “Downtown” or “City Center” on electronic signs without notable complaining suggests to me that they need to just go away as station names.

4. You can still find 555 on stop in Northgate TC

5. I noticed that MTA (New York City) buses also display “Fare Required” on headsign, which makes me wonder if this is some kinda of FTA mandate for agencies with high fare evasion rate.

   1. King County Metro started that too a few months ago. I assume it was individual agencies making the decision for their own reasons. The federal government doesn’t give money for operations so it has no leverage on fare policy. There is a fixed guideway subsidy that includes Metro trolleybuse routes (because the wire is fixed), so that could be considered operational support, but it’s at a much higher level than where fare policy could be an issue. Of course, there are random executive orders against federal money for transit in general or in blue states/cities, but that probabaly wouldn’t revolve around a technicality like the exact fare policy. Those are more geared toward how a city votes or its demographics or being a sanctuary city than about fare policy.

      1. FTA does provide some operating funds. Years ago, some agency (maybe MBTA?) got in trouble for not correctly reporting their operating hours, which gamed the formula slightly in their favor. It was policy at the agency in question to provide rides on deadheading buses if a passenger(s) needed to go to that location anyway. The agency reported those as in-service buses for the purposes of the formula, even though they were deadheading.

6. The Downtown issue is absurd. What people need to know is which direction/city the line goes to, not that a station ten stations away has a “Downtown” designation. It’s not like there’s another line at a different platform that goes to another part of Federal Way or Redmond or Lynnwood and that’s the line that goes to the center. There’s only one line in that direction and it goes to the center because a primary purpose of a metro is to go to city centers. It’s not like Sounder where the closest stop may be at the edge of the city (cough, Tukwila Station) because that’s where the legacy track is.

   So if a sign says “Federal Way”, “Lynnwood”, “Bellevue”, or “Redmond” station with no qualifier like “South”, it must be the center, and should be. The place where your destination most likely is, and the most businesses, and the most bus transfers, and where if it’s wrong, it’s only a short distance to your real destination or you can call somebody to pick you up there.

   Likewise, “Capitol Hill” station is right where it should be: at the confluence of Broadway & John, Seattle Central college, the Broadway retail district, and the Pike-Pine district. It doesn’t need to say “Capitol Hill village center, Broadway”, because the mere fact that it’s “Capitol Hill” station implies that it is and should be.

   1. That is a good point. I agree. It is one thing to have the needlessly long station names (“Lynnwood City Center” or “Federal Way Downtown”). It is wasteful but not the end of the world. It uses a lot of extra space but “Mountlake Terrace” has a lot of letters as well* (it doesn’t impact the size of the font that much).

      It is another to have directional signs using the full name. They should just refer to “Lynnwood” and “Federal Way” when describing the direction while also including “Seattle” (when the station isn’t in Seattle). For example TIBS should have a sign with “Seattle, Lynnwood” on one side and “Federal Way” on the other. At SoDo it should just have “Lynnwood” and “Federal Way”.

      *Let’s be thankful Mountlake Terrace didn’t add “City Center” to the station name even though it clearly is very close to the city center.

   2. Yeah it’s just “Capitol Hill” and not “Capitol Hill Downtown” or “Capitol Hill Village” or “Capitol Hill City Center”.

7. Okay, that Metro icon showing the 554 serving Chinatown/International District at 2nd and Lenora is triply wrong. Not only is the 554 not frequent, it also doesn’t serve 2nd/Lenora, and 2nd/Lenora is nowhere near the C/ID. Does anyone even look at these maps before they’re published?

8. Everyone has their own idea about what to put on the signs, and I do too, but I think that’s missing the forest for the trees. The sign-making and station-naming process seems to be missing a user-testing phase. Every time they make updates, the updates should be tested by finding random people unfamiliar with Link, and seeing if they can figure out where to go based on the signs. The tests should focus on the most popular destinations, as indicated by surveys of occasional (not regular) Link users.

   1. The reason for that is the money quote from the Urbanist article:

      “Part of the problem with Sound Transit’s station naming policy is that it’s a classic design-by-committee misadventure. There’s a behind-the-scenes staff process, there’s a public survey process, there’s a city influence process, and then there’s a process for busybody board members. Over the years, it’s usually been the latter two that have been most influential on what ultimately turns up on signs and materials, even upending commonsense public feedback.”

      This is true for pretty much everything ST does.

      1. ST is structurally designed to do what the cities and counties want because they’re the primary stakeholders. They represent the constituents who elected them. So if a city wants something, they’ll probably get it unless it violates a principle ST cares strongly about. I don’t know that boardmembers themselves have interfered in station naming, unless they happen to be the mayor of the city in question.

9. My memory of the 106 in 2009 has it running in the tunnel when Link started. It wasn’t running along MLK then. I don’t think it left the tunnel until the other buses did or it started terminating at CID station after it’s MLK reroute; I don’t remember which came first.

10. It always bugs me how audio announcements still use “southbound” and “northbound” often while there are no signs that state which direction the train is going.

    I’ve seen many visitors stressed when they hear an announcement yet have no visual orientation.

    1. That’s on ST Link by the way.

    2. It’s mainly “southbound platform” and “northound platform”, not just “southbound” and “northbound”. In other words, the platform’s usual direction, not the direciton the train is currently running. So at Federal Way and Lynnwood, where trains both arrive outbound and depart inbound at both platforms, the audio announcements say “northbound platform” or “southbound platform”. The problem is, there’s no sign at all saying which platform is which. In the middle of the network, say at Roosevelt underground station, the only way you tell which platform is which is if you know the “Lynnwood” destination sign is north and the “Federal Way” sign is south. It’s precisely visitors/occasional riders who are the least likely to know this. This is compounded when the signs don’t say which direction Downtown Seattle is, or even that Seattle exists. Which direction goes to the city of Seattle (any part of it at all)? Visitors don’t know that.

       I’ll reiterate my Westlake airport experience last summer. I was on the southbound paltform waiting for a train. Thee people with suitcases asked me if this was the right direction for the airport. I said it was. They still weren’t quite reassured, until I told them that Angle Lake is the station after the airport, and Lynnwood is fifteen miles north of Seattle.

       1. Yes the omission is confusing on a basic level. ST needs to state which platform they’re referring to in both announcements and signage. Audio announcements in particular can trigger instant panic when a rider suddenly hears it and then scans the station — but finds no signage.

          I sent emails describing this to ST staff over a decade ago to fix this. When I got no response I then emailed the Board. I got an automated “received” response after that but still no sincere reply. That goes to show one way in which ST culture can be simultaneously arrogant and stupid to anyone without clout.

11. The land that Celebration Park [in Federal Way] now sits on was once a local airport

12. The sign outside of the 3rd and Pine entrance/exit at Westlake says “Captiol Hill”

    1. I wonder if there’s a way to report incorrect signage to sound transit kind of like the Find It Fix It app…

13. The Snoqualmie Valley Shuttle and Duvall-Monroe shuttle were suspended today due to floods and road closures.

14. The most recent packer/urbanist piece i saw makes it sound like the st board is done considering ditching dstt2.. I have serious concerns about how thar construction would actually work considering hw many tunnels are already under downtown. Thats before you even look at the disastrous transfer plans. That dstt2 really needs to be binned and the money spent on something useful for once.i just hope there’s still a chance to kill it..

    1. I think ST leadership wants to kill it. They’ve made too many deals with developers at this point to build West Seattle Link and the Pioneer Square monster rat maze to easily renege now. I’m predicting that ST leadership will do all they can to screw transferring riders so Dow can have his empty train running directly from Alaska Junction to the new County building but go no further. Then they’ll come back to the voters begging for lots more money and blame voters when it gets rejected.

       It’s rather amazing to me that Somers still doesn’t get that the current plans create a new, giant hassle for Snohomish residents to get to and from SeaTac. It’s like he doesn’t care about actual rider experience when transferring.

       I’m waiting to see if anyone calls out ST for not studying automation with smaller station footprints as part of this study. They also did not study building Westlake station in a cheaper place.

       Another cost-saving scenario would be to build all of West Seattle, DSTT2 and Ballard as the new automated 3 Line and leave the 1 Line alone (with 1 Line driver switches at the Central OMF). That way ST could save money on station footprints and still keep their station locations.

       1. Another cost-saving scenario would be to build all of West Seattle, DSTT2 and Ballard as the new automated 3 Line

          I think that has merit as a long term goal.

          Just to back up here, but we can’t build West Seattle to Ballard. It is too expensive. Even if we skip a few stations and make a few other compromises it is too expensive. Balducci understands this. Other board members don’t (or they are ignoring this fundamental issue).

          The only way to save a huge amount of money is to build less of it. That doesn’t mean that we can’t build more of it later. In fact there is precedent for this. We couldn’t afford to run trains to the airport so Link ended at TIBS. Then we couldn’t afford to run to Federal Way so Link ended at Angle Lake. With that in mind, this is what we should do next:

          1) Build West Seattle Link from Ballard to Westlake. It should be built as an automated line (with smaller trains and stations) to reduce cost and improve the rider experience. Ballard Link had by far the highest ridership per dollar as well as the biggest rider time savings. It makes sense to build this first.

          2) Plan on extending the line to West Seattle in the future. It should go via First Hill but it doesn’t really matter at this point.

          3) In the meantime, improve the bus system in West Seattle. Add ramps connecting the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway (along with plenty of red paint).

          Eventually advocates can fight over whether it makes sense for the Ballard Line to serve West Seattle or some place that would provide a lot more benefit (like this). But that battle can happen later. In the meantime you provide the most cost-effective way to improve transit while still adhering to the basic ST3 plan.

    2. Ah, the Urbanist article is published. https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/12/13/eliminating-second-seattle-rail-tunnel-could-save-4-5b-but-with-major-impacts-delays/
       We’ve been following a set of blueskys Packer wrote during the committee meeting and wondering what their full analysis would be. The STB authors have been writing a response but we’ve been waiting to see the Urbanist article we assumed Packer would write, and the video of the meeting to see what all was said.

       My current thoughts are:
       1. It’s missing an automated Ballard stub alternative, which could save even more money and allow it to run every 2 minutes cost-effectively.
       2. I’m not sure how well bypassing Westlake and interlining at Symphony would serve passengers. It would be fine for going south; less so for going to the retail core or Capitol Hill or UW.
       3. Still, all the flaws of bypassing Westlake are small in comparison to a 10-minute transfer walk from the airport/Rainier Valley/south to northeast Seattle/Capitol Hill/north, which will probably be more people than those going to Ballard/SLU.

       Balducci: ““I understand what a range is, and the range starts zero, it goes to $4 billion, but it goes to $4 billion. There’s not a single other thing we’re considering that is going to potentially come with that range and possibility of cost savings, and therefore we have got to take this seriously,”

       What about the passengers?!! Improving those horrible DSTT1-DSTT2 transfers would save passengers a lot of time and frustration, which would mean more money in their pockets and better health. You can’t just treat the capital cost in a vacuum and throw the passengers under the train. That includes Balducci’s Eastside constituents going from the Eastside to the airport. A single-tunnel alternative or Ballard stub are worth continuing to study for that on top of the $4 billion.

       1. If ST decides to leave the current scenario in place, we simply MUST make a plea for either a full SODO station area redesign for cross platform transfers, same platform transfers or track configurations to allow for alternating destinations on both the 1 and 3 Lines. It wouldn’t directly solve the 2 Line transfer problem but it would sure make transferring easier on what’s likely to be the heaviest transfer movement by far.

          The cost of modifying SODO would be much cheaper than any other of the current Link stations being planned in Seattle, and benefitting many times over what any number of station users these other stations will have.

       2. Balducci seems to be the only one who gets it. We should definitely continue to study these options. I would also say that based on the information given, branching is dead. Too disruptive and expensive.

          Thus we should consider the pros and cons of a stub line. Here is where things get strange. People are claiming that a stub line would take longer. This is bullshit. First of all, we aren’t even done with the Ballard EIS. We haven’t settled on station locations. One of the more controversial aspects of the project is where to put the downtown stations (specifically CID and Midtown). Even from a planning standpoint there is value avoiding the second tunnel. Planning seven stations is faster and easier than planning ten.

          But planning is not causing the delay. These projects could be “shovel ready” and would still take a very long time to build them. That’s because they are so damn expensive. From an abstract standpoint additional planning could cause additional expense (as prices get higher as time goes on) but that is not the biggest issue. The biggest problem is the project is just too big. Thus the only way to build this sooner is to build less of it. The only way to build things sooner (if at all) is to make plans that involve major reductions in cost (like a stub line). In other words, they have it backwards.

          There is another aspect of this. Proponents of the second tunnel (as well as West Seattle Link) often talk about things in the very long term. “In a hundred years we will be glad we built this.” Fair enough. But if we are building this for the distant future, shouldn’t we get it right? It makes no sense to build a poorly-designed, second-rate tunnel (that doesn’t even include a First Hill station) if the entire goal is to provide something that will reap benefits fifty years from now.

          I find it bizarre that before you get into the pros and cons of a stub line (and there are plenty) it is clear that board members are ready to spread bullshit for some unknown reason. Seriously, I don’t get it. You have board members *from outside Seattle* saying that one of the great things about the tunnel is that people from outside Seattle will pay for it. What??? How is that a good thing. If Seattle can live without it, why should other areas chip in for it?

          Good Lord you have to be one hell of a salesman to convince someone from the South End to see this as being a good project: “OK, yeah, so the new tunnel will make trips to Capitol Hill, the UW or any of the north end stations worse. Trips to downtown on Link will be worse. Bus trips into Seattle will be worse. But hey, if you chip in a bunch of money then trips to Ballard, South Lake Union and Uptown will be a bit better.”

          Why the hell would they want that?

       3. “You have board members *from outside Seattle* saying that one of the great things about the tunnel is that people from outside Seattle will pay for it. What???”

          I don’t think that’s what Somers is saying. He’s warning North King that if DSTT2 is canceled, the non-North King contributions would be canceled too, so 4/5 of the money would not be available for an alternative.

          How is that a good thing. If Seattle can live without it, why should other areas chip in for it?

          “OK, yeah, so the new tunnel will make trips to Capitol Hill, the UW or any of the north end stations worse. Trips to downtown on Link will be worse.”

          The boardmembers seem to disagree that it would be worse, since they’re the ones that voted for the board resolutions leading to the current alignment. Balducci is the only one who seems to think the long downtown transfers are a problem. This seems to indicate the other boardmembers aren’t thinking like passengers who would experience the transfers.

       4. “OK, yeah, so the new tunnel will make trips to Capitol Hill, the UW or any of the north end stations worse. Trips to downtown on Link will be worse.”

          The boardmembers seem to disagree that it would be worse

          Forcing a transfer — even a really good one — makes the trip worse. That is just a fact. You might believe the downtown stations in the new tunnel are better than the existing ones but I don’t think anyone has actually argued that. Mainly because it is such a tough argument. It suggests that the one station in Midtown is better than the Symphony and Pioneer Square stations combined. That is just ridiculous.

          The board members may have approved this but that doesn’t mean any of them actually believe the new tunnel is superior to the old one. They simply think it is necessary.

       5. If they’re going to consider interlining at all, it needs to consider what could be done north of Westlake. During joint operations, the former bus tunnel went to Convention Place station, and there was a short section of tunnnel between the tunnel structure junction and convention place station. It doesn’t sound to me as if they’ve looked at what might be possible to do there. We’ve speculated here the new convention center structure is too close, but without a study I don’t think anyone really knows.

       6. “Forcing a transfer — even a really good one — makes the trip worse.”

          You can say that until you’re blue in the face but the boardmembers are the decision-makers, so the only way it will change is if they change their mind. And they seem unconcerned about the downtown transfers and don’t think it’s a problem.

       7. “We’ve speculated here the new convention center structure is too close”

          The convention center is on top of it. It’s where the station and layover lot used to be, and its foundation goes underground. You’re right that ST could study it to confirm what the actual constraints are and whether it would be possible to reuse the stub before the station entrance.

       8. Yes, the station itself is obviously gone, but the junction in the tunnel didn’t happen right at the station wall. It couldn’t, or there wouldn’t have been anything to support the Link tunnel.

          But not only that: the branch tunnel was relatively straight. A new branch at a sharper curve might be able to avoid whatever they did at the convention center.

       9. I don’t think that’s what Somers is saying. He’s warning North King that if DSTT2 is canceled, the non-North King contributions would be canceled too, so 4/5 of the money would not be available for an alternative.

          Fair enough. But there is no reason why the money for the tunnel can’t be spent on the rest of Ballard Link. It can be argued that Ballard Link is much of a regional benefit than the second tunnel itself. All the areas outside of Seattle would be better off with a stub line. It is pretty easy to see how the Snohomish County and the East Side benefit by this new line to South Lake Union and Uptown (areas that many would consider essentially part of downtown). While trips from the South End to those areas would not be quite as good, riders would retain their one-seat ride to the UW (which is better).

          Everyone outside of the city is better with a stub line. The only people that come out worse are those inside the city. Someone from Denny would not be able to take one-seat ride to the south end of downtown, Rainier Valley or the airport. But if Seattle is OK with that, then the rest of the region should be as well.

          Of course in all likelihood they would split the difference. You could agree to a ratio of the savings — say 50%. Everyone would save money. It is worth noting that North King brings in about a third of the money. So the areas outside of Seattle are supposed to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the tunnel. If they instead took half that money and put into paying for Ballard Link they would have a lot more money to pay for their projects. Meanwhile, North King would have the savings from not building the tunnel as well as that contribution. In other words, 2/3 of the savings (roughly) of whatever total amount is saved. If we ended up saving $3 billion by not building the tunnel it means a savings of $2 billion for North King — quite a bit of money.

       10. You can say that until you’re blue in the face but the boardmembers are the decision-makers, so the only way it will change is if they change their mind. And they seem unconcerned about the downtown transfers and don’t think it’s a problem.
           

           You are missing the point, Mike. I’m simply stating a fact. All other things being equal, being forced to make a transfer — even a “world class transfer” — is worse. This is obvious. No one wants to get out of their seat, walk to a different platform — or even the same one — and then wait for another train.

           Again, there are advantages and disadvantages to various options. My point is that this is clearly a disadvantage to building a new tunnel and shifting things around. Existing riders would be worse off for various trips.

       11. “It can be argued that Ballard Link is much of a regional benefit than the second tunnel itself. ” No, not really, unless you want to extend that logic to any Link extension. Switching to a Ballard stub helps with the overall agency financial capacity & perhaps resolves a funding pinch point that would help greatly from a timeline standpoint, but the chance of the stub being funded by non-North King subarea equity is nil, unless subarea equity just goes away entirely.

       12. “It can be argued that Ballard Link is much of a regional benefit than the second tunnel itself. ” No, not really, unless you want to extend that logic to any Link extension.

           So you are saying that serving Ash Way is as important to someone from Tukwila or Bellevue as serving South Lake Union? Seriously? That is ridiculous. South Lake Union is basically part of downtown. It is a major regional destination. It is quite reasonable for other areas to chip in for service there for the same reason they were willing to chip for a second tunnel.

           the chance of the stub being funded by non-North King subarea equity is nil, unless subarea equity just goes away entirely.

           It went away when they decided to chip in for the second tunnel (that would provide them less value). Seriously, imagine they build the second tunnel but it just runs between Westlake and CID. Now everyone can ride this second tunnel. Folks in the South End have to, unless they transfer. How in the world is that better, let alone a regional addition worth paying for?

       13. I have. Different view of the Ballard stub and subarea benefit. This one goes back to how the original DSTT was a King County project, yet Pierce and Snohomish residents are or will be using it. The Pierce and Snohomish subareas are merely paying back their share of the DSTT.

           Maybe East King and South King could make a better case for not contributing based on this logic.

           Regardless, Ballard Link is way too unaffordable to begin construction soon.

           And the EIS can be amended. ST can choose to add a new alternative of its choosing and technology.

           The big decision looming is what to do about West Seattle. As now presented , the only options are:

           1. Build as planned at $8B.
           2. Drop Avalon and save a neglible amount but build the rest at well above $7B.
           3. End at Delridge — dropping Alaska Junction and Avalon at $4B.
           4. Cancel it.

           There should be four other options on the table but ST won’t serve them:
           5. Drop Alaska Junction and have a $5.5B project.
           6. Design SODO station differently, saving both money and make transfers easier.
           7. Redesign West Seattle Link as an high-frequency, automated stub line that can someday connect to a Ballard stub line (saving $1-2B?)
           8. Reimagine it as a Stride Line that has direct SODO ramps, and perhaps extensions on either end, saving billions

           Keep in mind that as a stub line, West Seattle Link would only get 30% of projected ridership unless it’s changed to a high frequency, automated design.

15. I have to say that I am stunned that our county ex (Somers) would take the position he has on this. From the POV of anybody up here it is wrong on so many levels. I can’t imagine what he is thinking.

    I’ve lived in Snohomish Co. for 32 years and as best I can recall I’ve been to Ballard three times, and one of those times was in a canoe, so my kids could have the experience of going through the locks. I don’t think a canoe fits on light rail.

    1. I agree that Somers is wrong for many reasons. As for trips to Ballard from Snohomish County, Ballard Link doesn’t really help. The 44 will probably be faster. If riders decide to take Ballard Link than a second tunnel doesn’t help. They will make that transfer at Westlake. Thus a stub (with a frequent automated train) would be just as good as a second tunnel.

16. So, here’s another rant in the annals of Seattle bus routes – the 230 and the 522 cross paths at the junction of SR-522/96th Ave. But, the routes don’t actually connect there because the 522 skips the stop. The stop is served by the 372, but only on weekdays. On weekends, to make the connection between the northbound 230 and the westbound 522, you must backtrack towards downtown Bothell. But, even in downtown Bothell, the connection is awkward, requiring a 3-block walk between bus stops. Or, if you don’t want to do that, you can sit on the bus longer and connect at UW Bothell, which is a same-stop transfer, but by this point, you have gone quite far out of the way.

    All this awkwardness so that the 522 can skip over one stop seems unjustified. If the 522 is going to skip stops, it should not skip transfer points. Blyth Park is also a nice destination in and of itself, which would be much easier to access from North Seattle if the 522 served this stop.

    Looking at the Sound Transit stop map for the S3 line (https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/stride-s3-line), the problem gets worse. The S3 bus continues to skip over 96th Ave., but the 372 overlay is removed, so the need to backtrack to transfer will now apply on weekdays, in addition to weekends.

    Why are agencies designing bus routes like this that don’t connect? It would be one thing if connecting routes required a huge detour into a transit center, but we’re talking about adding one stop on one bus route, on a street the bus is already driving on, using an existing bus shelter. How hard can it get?

    1. They probably don’t know about trips like that. They probably assume everybody is going to downtown Bothell or Kirkland or transferring there to somewhere beyond. There isn’t much in the way of buildings at 522 & 96th the last time I was there, so it probably seems like an unlikely destination or transfer point.

       1. I think it’s a combination of three factors:

          1) The 522’s route and stopping pattern was chosen before the 230 existed, and when the 230 was created, Metro and Sound Transit didn’t talk to each other because they’re different agencies. From the narrow perspective of KCM, there *is* a connection at 96th to the 372, and they weren’t thinking about the other agency’s routes.

          2) In deciding whether a street corner is worthy of a stop, agencies often count the number of homes and jobs nearby, but ignore recreational destinations such as parks because that’s not the metric they are measuring.

          3) Route 522 is mostly viewed by suburban board members as a bus that people drive their cars to to catch Link to go to downtown Seattle, and a connection with the 230 doesn’t fulfill that purpose, so it becomes a blind spot to them.

       2. 4) Hardly anyone makes that transfer.

          5) With Stride 3 they will be able to make that transfer by simply staying on the bus longer. It will actually require less walking than today and be in a more pleasant location.

    2. As you mentioned, the 372 makes that connection. The problem is hardly anyone makes that transfer. For both the 372 and 230, the bus stops around there get very few riders (either direction). At most there are about five people a day that transfer from the 230 to the 372. Whether riders walk to the stops in the area or transfer from another bus, this is coverage service.

       From what I can tell the new Stride line will turn off of Bothell Way at 98th and follow that until it becomes 185th. It will have a stop on both sides of 98th, close to the existing stop for 230. Thus riders will just walk across 98th if they want to reverse directions. This means riding the bus for longer than they want (basically like this) but otherwise it should be a pleasant, easy transfer.

       The main thing to keep in mind is that only a handful of people will do this. Stride (like the 522) is an express bus. It is designed to be limited-stop. It is not a coverage route. Ideally we should have another bus that happens to do the coverage work and in this case we do (the 230). I don’t really see this as a big issue given the number of people that transfer. I usually err on the side of more bus stops (not fewer) when it comes to these “BRT” type lines but in this case I think they made the right decision.

       The only place where ST should have added more stops (or we need a “shadow”) is between 68th Avenue NE (Kenmore) and 96th Avenue NE. As I wrote before this is the only segment that has a considerable number of existing riders (on the 372 or 522) that will have to walk a long ways to a bus stop.

       1. It’s not just about the transfer, it’s also about access to the park. Blythe Park is a nice park, and it should be more accessible from Seattle than having to get off the bus a mile away. And I’m not asking for the bus to waste everybody’s time detouring into the park’s parking lot either. Just a simple bus stop on the street. If nobody is getting on or off there, the bus just cruises by, and having the stop doesn’t cost any service time.

          And, as for the 522’s stopping pattern, normally the standard service plan is to run the local route all day and the express route only during peak. The 522 corridor does mostly the reverse – it runs the express route all day, every day, and the local shadow route only Monday-Friday.

       2. I’ve been to Blythe Park several times and it really isn’t worth taking a bus for. Again, less than a dozen riders use the bus stops around there (via the 372). That includes transfers, people heading to the park — all of it. That just isn’t enough to worry about. My guess is one reason they didn’t bother with a stop there is because the bus has to work its way into the middle lane (eastbound). They could probably serve the stop and get over there but there may be big backups in the right lane as a result. Overall it just isn’t a big issue — riders can transfer. The real problem is the lack of stops to the west.

17. Can someone please tell me why it is Downtown Redmond, Bellevue Downtown, and Federal Way Downtown? Why isn’t it called Redmond Downtown Station?

    1. I never understood that either. My mind pictures a group of Sound Transit bigwigs huddled in a conference room, trying out both possibilities and deciding that, for whatever reason, “Redmond” sounds better after the word “downtown”, while “Bellevue” sounds better before. Why? Don’t ask.

       1. Its the individual city that votes on the names that’s why its inconsistent

       2. Each station is named in a vacuum based on the suggestions for that station. It’s not the cities that vote on it, it’s the Sound Transit Board. The cities make a recommendation, but that can be done through the DOT without a vote, the way SDOT recommended Ballard Link be rerouted from Belltown to SLU in early 2016.

          All these names are self-aggrandizement by the cities. They all want to be seen as large enough to have a downtown or city center, which implies highrises and lots of jobs. The reason they want that is to attract employers, especially high-paying ones, who will increase the tax base and provide jobs for residents so they don’t have to commute out of the city.

       3. All these names are self-aggrandizement by the cities.

          Exactly. Well put. Except, of course, for Mountlake Terrace. They just named their main station, “Mountlake Terrace”. The station is quite close to City Hall, the main Library, PUD and police station. It is the commercial center of the city (such as it is). Yet despite all of this — and despite the fact that it is quite likely there will eventually be another station in Mountlake Terrace — they had the good sense and humility to just keep things simple. Good for you, Mountlake Terrace! Good for you.

18. **”If they’re going to consider interlining at all, it needs to consider what could be done north of Westlake. During joint operations, the former bus tunnel went to Convention Place station, and there was a short section of tunnel between the tunnel structure junction and convention place station. It doesn’t sound to me as if they’ve looked at what might be possible to do there.”**

    @Glenn in Portland – I also am also curious if this is something to investigate. Looking back in time – I think much of that approach to Convention Place Station when it veered from Pine Street was surface parking lots before – but have since been developed into high-rises. I am not sure if this would affect the viability to modify/extend those portions of the tunnel.

    1. Discussed in today’s article:
       https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/12/15/no-new-tunnel-downtown-sound-transit-explores-ballard-link-alternatives/

       1. Ah I missed that piece thanks! :)

Comments are closed.