What will happen in 2026 in Pugetopolis transit? Here’s a few things off the top of my head:
- January: Katie Wilson will reveal her transit agenda as Seattle’s mayor. We’ll see how well her negotiation and implementation skills perform.
- March-May: The full 2 Line is expected to open in this timeframe.
- June: The World Cup. Transit service will be the current network and the full 2 Line, plus extra runs on a few Metro and ST routes.
- September: The ST Express network restructure. The final proposal will probably go to the board in late spring.
- Sometime: Pinehurst Station opening.
- Spring-ish: The Sound Transit board will identify which ST3 cost-cutting measures it will advance in the Enterprise Initiative.
More events are below in the comments.
Also, what should the agencies/governments do in 2026? Especially things that are politically and logistically feasible.
Pinehurst Station
cool, I can take the light rail from one side of the golf course to the other. money well spent by sound transit
Other items planned or potential this year:
Pinehurst station is expected to open later this year.
The Board will adopt a new ST3 Plan and new Long-Range Plan, which will be informed by the Enterprise Initiative but also provide insight into what the Board expects the future of ST to look like in coming decades.
The Seattle Transportation Benefit District is up for renewal, so we’ll either see a Seattle-only TBD or possibly a King County TBD.
We may see a new permanent SDOT director selected this year.
WSDOT will probably advance plans to rearrange the ramps around Judkins Park.
Seattle will finish its Comprehensive Plan update this year, having so far only officially adopted looser low-density residential rules as required by the State.
Open payments for ORCA are on the way.
Also, fare gate study by mid-year and pilot starting by end of year.
Oh! FAB lanes pilot on Westlake.
Things that should happen (but might not):
Bus lanes on Denny.
Further studies of an OMF in Interbay to support the Ballard Stub Line.
Permanent pedestrianization of Pike Place Market, with bollards and such.
Pilot of a pedestrian super block in Capitol Hill.
Things that should happen (but probably won’t):
ORCA cards in Apple Wallet.
Bus service on 1st Avenue with BAT lanes.
State Constitutional amendment to allow progressive taxation of income, paired with a law requiring implementation of an income tax that replaces a large portion of the state sales tax (currently 6.5%). Associated authorization of County and City-level income taxes for general purposes, including transportation benefit districts.
Start of construction of RapidRide R and/or K.
Planning for significant trolleybus network expansion.
All-day Sounder service (including weekends).
More things that should happen:
Public restrooms in the DSTT and other major transit stops (paired with a public restroom system across the city).
Stop running the SLU Streetcar and transfer the Seattle Monorail to SDOT, allowing the Monorail to act as real public transit with ORCA transfers and subsidized fares. Move forward with planning a second Monorail station in Belltown.
(Related to previous point re: transit on 1st) Run a trolleybus shuttle from Uptown to the Stadiums via 1st Avenue, adding stringing wire where needed and reinforcing the areaways in PSQ where needed. Swap parking for BAT lanes.
Put automated traffic enforcement cameras on the front of every bus and let the driver “shoot” vehicles violating bus lanes or otherwise impeding transit.
I think you’re wrong to reduce sales tax and replace it with a broad income tax. Our sales tax is already relatively “progressive” because food, utilities, services and healthcare items are exempt.
Grant, the sales tax on “big ticket” items make a significant extra “bite” to one’s budget from sales tax, but it’s only one-tenth the chunk taken by the item itself.
An income tax will be taken “upstream” as an increased withholding for most people, and will affect every month’s income forever. One can’t “save up” to lessen the sting.
If you specifically want to nick the rich, add an additional surtax on high-value properties.
I get that the exemptions for necessities make it seem progressive, but the data doesn’t lie. The only reason WA is now the #2 least progressive tax state (formerly #1) is due to Seattle’s payroll tax. The constitutional rule requiring equal taxation of property is a novelty from a bygone era. The resounding defeat of the anti-capital gains tax proposition shows the people want the rich to pay their fair share. We can’t keep funding the transit improvements the region needs with flat rate car tabs and sales tax increases. Everyone benefits from (good) transit projects, but the low-income pay disproportionately for it.
Add to that probably won’t happen list:
The ST Board will demand metrics like ridership, cost per rider and travel time differences including transfers — and actually make decisions based on metrics — as opposed to what people pressure them to do.
“Bus service on 1st Avenue with BAT lanes.“
I know there were heavy discussions about this but I didn’t pay attention to the context. Is this something actually in the work?
There are no official plans for bus service or BAT lanes on 1st Avenue. The CC streetcar center lanes would be compatible with buses (and RapidRide G would share it for block for Madison station), but there were no plans for bus routes, and now the CC looks like it won’t be pursued. The STB comment section has suggested moving some bus routes from 3rd to 1st or adding a north-south route on 1st, but that hasn’t gotten official acknowledgement. The waterfront plan envisions north-south transit on Alaskan Way but it was also looking at 1st Avenue alternatives (e.g., the CC streetcar being an indirect solution for the waterfront). Waterfront transit isn’t funded yet, and it’s pretty certain it would be on Alaskan Way if/when it does arrive.
I believe the areaways in Pioneer Square are a major blocker to service on 1st Ave. Perhaps something through Belltown can get run in the meantime
https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/areaways-program
If the streetcar extension was more affordable it would have been great to get federal funding to fix the areaways. Roughly 40% of the project’s budget was earmarked for the areaways and the Jackson St bridge (which to my understanding also needs to get replaced soon).
I believe the areaways in Pioneer Square are a major blocker to service on 1st Ave.
That is another advantage of running buses. It is pretty easy to work around an area like that while they are fixing the streets. Then they can reroute them when they are done.
If the streetcar extension was more affordable it would have been great to get federal funding to fix the areaways.
The city should change the project from being streetcar related to bus service. Providence did that and was able to get federal funding. Probably impossible under Trump though (it should have been done when Biden was in office).
re areaways on 1st Avenue.
In 2019, the southend pathway bus routes used 1st Avenue and did not serve the stop pair at South Jackson Street to avoid the outside lane. Since 2005, Metro has used a skip-stop pattern on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th avenues, so stop spacing is wide on the alternative pathways. If Metro and SDOT decide to restore service to 1st Avenue, it can be done. SDOT may also find a way to fix the areaway issue. It appears the private sector touched an areaway last year on 2nd Avenue Extension South just south of Yesler Way; an old building was remodeled; the stop serving I-90 routes was closed for a time. Fewer stops could be used than in 2011, when routes 15, 18, 21, 22, and 56 were shifted to 3rd Avenue to make way for the SR-99 AWV replacement project. Though some transit capital will be needed, BAT lanes might be overkill. I suggest bus bulbs at Bell Street and signal changes at Pine Street and South Jackson Street. There are good engineers at Metro and SDOT.
New Year’s resolution 2026: Plan a 2027 Begins article long enough beforehand to get others’ input. This article only occurred to me at 10am today. All these items are too much to add to the article, so I’ll just refer to the comments.
@Nathan Dickey Is the streetcar popular among people going to Amazon? Maybe it should be kept.
Based on its latest ridership numbers, it’s not really popular with anyone. The First Hill streetcar has rebounded, but the SLU line has not. Amazon went 5-day RTO in 2025 and SLU streetcar ridership is still anemic.
I think the lack of extended NYE service for either streetcar is rather indicative.
$4.6 million per year, 222,592 riders in 2024, if I’m reading that right?
That’s $20.67 per passenger.
For comparison, Link served about 30.8M rides in 2024 at an operational cost of about $327M, or about $10.63 per ride.
At something like 9 times the average distance traveled.
The South Lake Union streetcar should be replaced with bus service. This would serve more areas while being just as fast and frequent. It would be better for transit riders and cyclists. https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/10/04/replacing-the-south-lake-union-streetcar/.
“Dickey Is the streetcar popular among people going to Amazon? Maybe it should be kept.”
I doubt that. It might benefit someone but if look at Amazon’s worksite building by building and make a assumption that vast majority of them lives in North Seattle + West Seattle, very few people really have to use SLU streetcar.
If the SLU streetcar’s Westlake station can be closer to Westlake Link station and bus tops at 3rd Ave, it might be their option. Right now I think most people better off walk extra 1000 ft or take existing buses that goes to SLU area
“The South Lake Union streetcar should be replaced with bus service.”
They’re already there, the 40 and 70. They probably have room for all the streetcar passengers without adding buses, but at words Metro could add extra peak runs or short peak runs. Both routes are getting upgraded anyway.
“The South Lake Union streetcar should be replaced with bus service.”
They’re already there, the 40 and 70.
Sure, but it could use additional service to make up for the loss of the streetcar. An extension of the H Line is the obvious choice. The C and H can be synchronized as well. That would give people a waterfront/3rd/SLU combination running every five minutes (midday weekdays). The 40 would also run along part of that route. Yet it wouldn’t actually cost more in terms of service (the extension is about as far as the pathway of the streetcar). You likely save operations money overall as maintaining another bus is cheaper than maintaining the streetcar. The only issue is congestion on Valley Street (next to South Lake Union). It would take some effort to pave over the streetcar tracks, move the bike lanes and replace them with bus lanes. But it probably still saves money as selling off the streetcar shed would probably pay for it. It would take some effort but not be a huge project. It would make biking much, much better while also making the C Line faster and the H Line more useful.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2024/00001.pdf
See per hour operating cost of Seattle streetcars. Not all hours cost the same. In 2024, they were more than $400 each. (The trolleybus was $246 per hour).
During the 2024 budget discussions, the Council discussed ending the SLU line. They tabled it until after FIFA. It was not publicly discussed in 2025.
The line opened in 2007, so the cars are almost 20 years old. One-half the capital cost was funded by an LID, so there may be legal and financial costs to ending it. The SLU cars do not have battery power, so cannot serve on the First Hill line.
SLU is well-served by routes 62, 40, 70, and the C Line; all penetrate downtown Seattle and have a shorter transfer walk at Westlake.
Seattle has to find the service subsidy; the lower the ridership, the more subsidy is required.
There will need to be some sort of headway control measures deployed along the entire length of the 1 and 2 Lines.
The count-up clocks at Mt Baker seemed at least somewhat useful.
Having a supervisor at each terminal station will probably also be essential, along with building in recovery time for operators.
Also, stand-by operators at each terminus.
Doing a South Link tour today, checking out the Federal Way and KDM station areas. I’ve been waiting for south Link to go to the Des Moines waterfront, but the 165 is still hourly Sundays, so I wrote down the times but it probably won’t fit our schedule. I checked to see if there was another route alternating with it for the other half hour, and was surprised there isn’t.
Take Metro route 635 (the Des Moines Community Shuttle) from Angle Lake Station to the Des Moines waterfront district.
The Metro restructure project did not consider changes to Route 635; it has a short span and no Sunday service. https://kingcounty.gov/en/dept/metro/routes-and-service/schedules-and-maps/635
Route 156 is indirect and does not serve the Angle Lake Link station.
The City of Des Moines has been subsidizing the 635, mostly to serve the newish business park and the waterfront avenue, but still with poor access to the actual waterfront.
I don’t see the colleges offering to subsidize an extension of the 635. I don’t see Des Moines asking for such an extension that could end up halving frequency for the business park.
In theory the new Cascades trains will arrive in 2026, which will certainly be an improvement over sold out worn out two car Amfleet trains.
Yeah, more capacity is huge. I’d suspect also lower fares given the greater capacity (while most costs are fixed)… ridership should explode even more. Lack of capacity drove fares up.
Dang, I’m hoping Dow meets his goal of revenue service on the I-90 floating bridge on the 2 Line by May 31. Also I expect an opening date to be announced later this month, similar to how the 2 Line Starter Line only took 2 months between the announcement and the actual opening. I’m hoping that, but it opens in March, and similar to how the Downtown Redmond Link Extension opening date was announced in January. Finally after 58 years in the making, it will be here this year.
This is also good because that means I get to ride the I-90 segment of the 2 Line before my graduation :)
There are rumblings of Pierce Transit 0.3% for transit measure getting on the ballot. That would be huge.
Cam,
I really doubt this…. because internal polling would point towards it failing. Tacoma voters have gotten more progressive over the last 10 years, but the County voters have stayed the same, or maybe have even gotten a little more conservative. Although Mello won a County wide election, (Pierce County Executive) so maybe Pierce Transit might have a shot?
Tacoma has a big problem called “regionalism”. Think of Tacoma as its own place with 215,000 people. It’s not part of Pierce Country. It’s not a Seattle exurg. It’s the tied for the 2nd most populated City in Washington State (I’d never kick dirt on Spokane).
The big problem transit wise with Tacoma is it’s always tried to build this link with Seattle. Some of it is because many of the “progressive” pro-transit people in Tacoma would rather live in Seattle and idea of a train ride to the great and all powerful “Emerald City” a hell of a drug. The question is (and always will be) “Is transit something used to get around Tacoma or leaving the City?”
“Tacoma voters have gotten more progressive over the last 10 years”
In other words, more Yes votes to counter the county’s No votes. Lakewood is also interested in more transit. How do Tacoma’s and Lakewood’s population growth compare to the rest of the PT district? Even if a lot of houses are being built in the exurbs, the fact that they’re single-family neighborhoods mean they don’t add that many voters per square mile.
If a PT-wide measure really would fail even after contacting the PT district in the 2010s to shed the biggest No areas, then Tacoma should explore a Tacoma transit benefit district like Seattle has to raise funds for PT expansion in Tacoma. That’s where most of the would-be ridership is anyway.
It’s going to fail. Because most residents are unaware that Pierce Transit is a private entity. The residents think that The Country runs Pierce Transit.
Pierce Transit is run by the country, dunno where you’re pulling this private entity business thing from other than conflating the subcontractor PT uses for bus and paratransit services.
Zach B,
Pierce Transit is a separate entity from Pierce County. It’s governed by local elected officials within the Public Transit Benefit Area. It’s more like a public corporation, which is fairly common for public transit agencies. It’s a bit of a ministerial point, but it’s definitely not run by Pierce County.
It’s a separate entity, but saying it’s “private” is misleading. They are corporations, but serve under the authority of the state.
People vote based on how much they want more bus service vs how much they don’t want more taxes or think they can’t afford them, not on which part of government it’s in. How many people know whether Metro or Community Transit is operated by their counties? (Metro yes since 1992, CT no.) Would it change their vote if they found out they were wrong? I doubt it.
Although Pierce Transit isn’t a private corporation, that doesn’t mean the Public Transit Benefit Area doesn’t need to take a dirt nap. It’s really an awful idea that needs to go away.
Some of the problem is Pierce Transit doesn’t do a good job of serving rural Pierce County and those voters don’t want to pay for it. So a tax increase for better service is close to impossible. Even if PT had more money, there just isn’t enough density to serve rural residents and they’re not going to take the bus anyway. Any attempt to pass a PT tax increase to fuel for the GOP in Pierce County.
Tacoma needs bus service and Tacoma voters are willing to pay for it. It’s not a very big city and bus service shouldn’t cost that much. Tacoma needs its own transit tax district and the rest of County can just pound sand. I could care less what Spanaway or Puyallup won’t pay for. Tacoma is 50 square miles. Pierce County is something over 1500 square miles. Let’s say we just blow up Pierce transit up and give Tacoma as its own transit tax district. Even with no tax increase, Tacoma has plenty of money for its own City bus service. 215,000 residents living in 50 square miles… it’s not rocket science to run a bus system to serve Tacoma.
The worst idea is Tacoma tax payers paying more into a broken Pierce Transit so Tacoma can get the bus service the City of Destiny deserves. In reality Tacoma would just end up getting screwed. Regionalism is rarely the solution to urban problems.
The Pierce Transit service area (the area who would vote) isn’t the entire county, it’s an area maybe 3 times larger than Tacoma:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5e122c82aab449f9acf4ce14b596d394
Basically what I would, controversially (Midland is farmland) call “urban,” and likely much bluer overall than the entire county.
Well, Summit-Waller is mostly farmland. Midland used to be, but is more just sprawly lots with some higher income tract housing mixed with rural poverty.
But in any case, especially along the Pac Ave corridor and around the base, these areas have populations that are really struggling, and would benefit massively from high quality frequent transit, so they don’t have to waste thousand of dollars a year on gas and maintenance that can sometimes add up to as much as a third of their income from their low-wage jobs.
And what is “broken” about Pierce Transit? I’m actually pretty shocked how well they do, given a limited budget. Ignoring the stupidity that is Runner.
Most transit agencies in Washington are PTBA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transportation_benefit_area). There are only six agencies that aren’t (they are listed on the page). I don’t see anything wrong with operating in that manner. I’ve heard many people applaud Community Transit for example (which is also a PTBA).
Some of the problem is Pierce Transit doesn’t do a good job of serving rural Pierce County and those voters don’t want to pay for it.
But that is an argument *for* a PTBA. You can draw boundaries that don’t include rural areas (or areas that are anti-tax). That is really the only significant difference. If it is run by the county then everyone in the county has to pay taxes. Thus you have it completely backwards. By being a PTBA it has a better chance of focusing efforts on areas that are more cost effective and people are more willing to pay for it. The Seattle Transportation Benefit District (which is different legally but a similar concept) was setup entirely so that Seattle would have additional transit funding in Seattle.
The main reason Pierce Transit doesn’t provide great transit is because it is underfunded. Community Transit is very well funded in comparison. If they pass a sales-tax increase it will help shrink the gap. Cam is right. That would be huge.
Has anybody but me ever rode the PT #1 bus all the down to the “Y” ? Terrible bus ride.
It’s not that Pierce County isn’t a good transit provider, (they are amazing!) it just Pierce Transit isn’t built for transit with low density and the population doesn’t want transit. You can’t fight gravity here.
“And what is “broken” about Pierce Transit?”
I was going to ask that too. The main problem I see is it should be twice as frequent across the board. That’s not an implementation problem; it’s a revenue problem.
“Has anybody but me ever rode the PT #1 bus all the down to the “Y” ?”
Yes. What’s wrong with it? My impression is its performance and onboard environment are like any average PT or Metro route. I was impressed by how many crosstown grid routes it transfers to, and how many crosstown routes PT has overall, more than Metro does it seems like. I haven’t seen the 1 peak hours.
I’ve ridden both the stream and the 1 from the Y. Both were solid. And they are even more solid with 11 new pedestrian true redlight crossings.
And they are planning to do some work to rebuild the infrastructure around the terminus of the 1 at Fred Meyer. Right now it’s a death trap, with people standing on the shoulder.
“the terminus of the 1 at Fred Meyer”
The last time I rode the 1 to the Y the terminus was Walmart. Has that been replaced by Fred Meyer or are both there?
Mike, you’re correct that the 1 ends just past the Walmart at the Spanaway TC. The 1 or another route probably did go to the Fred Meyers at one point but there’s no bus service to that Freddy’s currently.
Also to chime in, I’ve ridden the 1 before and it was…fine. The main gripe i have with it is that I wish the Stream service had been a Limited stop version of the 1 all the way to TCC instead of just from Tacoma Dome. It’s something Denver has with the 15/15L and previously with the 16/16L bus service on Colfax Ave (the main thoroughfare of Denver, similar in many ways to Aurora Ave and Pacific Hwy).
You are right. Walmart.
I think if it ever had a chance, it would be Nov 2026, which is likely going to be a wave election for dems, and the hold your nose trumpies we have here in Pierce will often stay home. I suppose Nov 2028 might be better on a presidential year, depending on how the national landscape goes.
I agree. You need to hold it on either the midterms or a presidential election.
SDOT will release their annual levy delivery plan roughly Jan 31. That will give us a rough idea of priorities for 2026.
Last year’s was here: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/Funding/Levy/2025_SDOT_Transportation_Levy%20Delivery_Plan.pdf
Can we push for the 4 line to stop at South Bellevue Station?
The 4 Line planning has not yet begun. The big negative is with Mercer Slough impacts. However, as I’ve noted before, the line must cross Mercer Slough at some point somewhere— and the impacts won’t emerge until design begins.
We are so close to the 2 Line opening date that I think it is best to wait it out a few months more to see what happens. If 2 Line becomes a popular way to get to Seattle from the Eastside in general and the I-90 corridor in specific, I would expect interest in moving the transfer point there. But if not, ST will probably be reluctant to change course.
I think it’s a very good idea, assuming it’s technically feasible. How would we go about advocating for this before ST gets too far along to consider it?
EISes start with an Alternatives Analysis phase. That would be the time to get it in on the ground floor. That will probably be in the 2030s.
Construction can’t begin until ST gets through its maximum debt period, when Everett, Tacoma Dome, and Ballard/downtown are all being built simultaneously. Everett and Tacoma Dome will wind down in the mid 2030s. So ST may wait to start the EIS until three years before that (one year for the EIS, one for design, and one in case these take longer).
It would normally be somewhat difficult to add a divergence to the elevated guideway south of the station. However, there is a widened and strengthened section of guideway just south of the station for the scissors cross-over. The facing point half of the cross-over might be turned into a slip switch where the eastbound Line 4 track crosses the eastbound Line 2 track. The westbound Line 4 track would just merge with the eastbound Line 2 track just north of the trailing-point cross-over’s merge with it.
Here are two images of how converting half of the scissors cross-overs to a slip switch would work.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=728432126985321&set=pcb.728432243651976
I thinks there is merit to look into automating the 4 Line and terminate it at South Bellevue.
1. No need to merge tracks. Or add just one connecting track to get to the OMF rather than build a new, small OMF. Instead add a center platform above the existing one.
2. One slender track over Mercer slough possible with automated operations. The Slough impact would be minimalized.
3. Train doors sitting at South Bellevue waiting for any transferring rider from the east or west. With automation, the wait would only be a few minutes.
4. Stations can be shorter and cheaper. The smaller stations could enable shifting station locations to be closer to Bellevue College and other key places in the corridor.
5. The cost savings would free up funds for infill stations. Note that Lakemont Station is technically deferred.
6. The project could be a stand-alone design-build project with little disruption to the 3 Line during construction.
“I thinks there is merit to look into automating the 4 Line and terminate it at South Bellevue.”
Or just extend it to Canyon Park P&R (or honestly even Lynnwood TC) via UW Bothell, Kirkland, Lake Washington Blvd, and Bellevue Way
The current transfer point for a Seattle- Issaquah trip is at East Main. It has side platforms so it’s not optimal as riders would have to cross tracks. In contrast, South Bellevue has a center platform which greatly facilitates making a train transfer.
It’s just one more reason to shift the merge point.
Frankly, as planned, the track merge switches needed south of East Main Station look rather messy and expensive, and will still disrupt upper Mercer Slough wetlands.
Al, you can’t have the advantages of a center platform for the Spine trains, AND have the 4 Line terminate at the Spine platform, on the eastbound track. That would really mess up the eastbound Spine trains.
If it terminates, it has to have its own platform. The stub track could be above the eastbound spine track and the platform for the 4 line directly above the center platform that’s there now.
Or you could have the stub be at-grade next to the escalator plaza at the bus level.
Either of those would minimize the vertical change to one level with a bit of lateral in the second option..
What you emphatially do NOT want is another platform at the same level as the existing center platform. That requires two level changes.
I’m sorry but the whole thing is silly. If someone is trying to sell you a 2005 Jeep Cherokee that burns oil and has 150,000 miles on it for twenty grand you don’t ask what color. You buy something else. Instead of Issaquah Link they should build:
1) HOV connection between I-90 and 405. This will cost less than a billion (see page 147 here).
2) Lots more buses.
This would mean frequent and fast buses from various parts of Issaquah and Bellevue (College) to Downtown Bellevue. Riders would also have a faster two-seat ride to Seattle via the buses that go to Mercer Island. Meanwhile, Kirkland just needs lots more buses. Run an express from Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue. Just like that you’ve produced something a lot more valuable for way less money.
Yes Issaquah Link will be a poor use of money, but there’s a good chance ST will attempt it anyway, so why not at least make lemonade from the lemons?
Yes light rail is a poor use of money for this corridor. Low ridership and low speed
The highway can run buses at 60-70 mph. A light rail moves slower and there isn’t a capacity issue from these low density suburbs requiring light rail.
Express buses are the way to go here, as well as adding bypasses to avoid traffic. I-90 is usually not congested into Bellevue anyways.
However, if the 4 Line is built, it is crucial it stops at South Bellevue for a quick transfer to the 2 Line. It’s also useful for 111 riders who want to go to Eastgate/Issaquah/Bellevue College.
But a trains value comes with speed. A faster metro train along the I-90 length will encourage more ridership. Link doesn’t feature that. So it serves no purpose. Add more express buses and local service with the money instead.
Also I-90 doesn’t need an HOV ramp onto 405 North. It’s a waste of money. I never see the ramp congested. For a few minutes at most, it’s not worth it.
It’s only the ramp to Renton that’s crowded and no bus is planned there anyways.
Just add the darn bus routes. Save the money for operations.
Also I-90 doesn’t need an HOV ramp onto 405 North.
It does if they want to connect to the Eastgate freeway station. It is the biggest weakness along the corridor. The buses that serve that station (from Issaquah or from the neighborhoods surrounding it) can’t just get on the freeway and run express to Downtown Bellevue. They either go via Bellevue Way or Lake Hills Connector. Eastgate is within walking distance of Bellevue College which is why serving it is so important.
With ramps connecting the HOV lanes of I-90 and 405 the buses could serve that stop and then get to Downtown Bellevue in about as much time as it would take the train (maybe less). This means riders from various places in Issaquah would stop there before going to Downtown Bellevue, saving a considerable amount of time compared to what will be offered after East Link. Buses from places like Robinswood and Lake Hills could go through the campus of Bellevue College and then get on the freeway and run express to Downtown Bellevue as well.
Yes Issaquah Link will be a poor use of money, but there’s a good chance ST will attempt it anyway, so why not at least make lemonade from the lemons?
That is what I’m suggesting. I’ve proposed something much *better* than Issaquah Link. Faster travel times. A lot more stops. The only major difference is that the mode would be buses, not trains.
I really don’t think there is a rail solution for Issaquah that would be better than buses (no matter how much money you spend). Partly it is the sprawling, auto-centric nature of Issaquah. But mostly it is because the buses can be really good at connecting riders to both Mercer Island (with its train to Seattle) and Downtown Bellevue.
But sure, I’ll play along. Let’s see if we can make this train better. Start with the first suggestion. Have Issaquah Link connect to East Link at South Bellevue. You still only have one station in Issaquah. The vast majority of Issaquah (and all of Sammamish) can’t walk to the station. This means that the vast majority of Issaquah has to take a bus or drive to the station. This would make no sense if they are heading to Seattle. The buses would go directly to Mercer Island. The only reason to transfer is to get to Downtown Bellevue. The same is true with park and ride users. You might as well drive to a local park and ride (and catch the express bus or Mercer Island) or better yet, drive to South Bellevue. So you’ve probably spent hundreds of millions of dollars and maybe saved time for a few dozen riders.
Part of the problem is the lack of stops. So let’s add several stops in lower Issaquah, including Olde Town. Then, after serving lower Issaquah the train loops around to serve the Highlands. You’ve got half a dozen stations in Issaquah, maybe more. You’ve still only covered a small portion of the sprawling city but at least you’ve made a good size dent. So now the Highlands is connected to Issaquah Link. So what? Their bus got them to Downtown Bellevue, Bellevue College or Seattle (via Mercer Island) just as fast. All of the major destinations are about as fast via a bus. The main thing you’ve improved is travel within Issaquah. Big deal. The bus is a little slower but not much slower. Either way you just aren’t going to get that many riders. Look how many riders. So you’ve spent billions while making transit trips just a little bit better for a few hundred (if that).
The only place where Issaquah Link could be improved substantially is in Kirkland. But obviously they don’t have enough money for that or it would have been part of the plans. Even then it isn’t the highest priority for Kirkland. Running the 255 more often is. Then build the K Line and run express buses from Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue. Also run express buses from Totem Lake to the UW.
But if they really want to improve things in Kirkland they should run buses on the CKC. That would make the trip from various parts of Kirkland to Bellevue faster. But unlike a rail line to Bellevue it would make getting to the UW much faster as well. Again, the buses are a better option.
The buses can freely take the ramp. It’s never congested. They just end up waiting in the long line for people going to Renton on the evenings. There isn’t a line to Bellevue.
Easy fix is a shoulder bus lane and HOV entrance from the parallel Eastgate road into the I-90 to regular 405 North ramp. You don’t have to burn money building a center running flyover to a portion of the freeway that is rarely congested.
Instead the HOV lane should go to 405 South on the new ETL where the congestion regularly affects (long backups for miles in the evenings from both directions in I-90). Will help routes like 111 and potentially future expresses between Eastgate and the Southern portions of the county. It would also loosen up traffic for buses trying to access the North ramp, but is cut off by the long line going South.
For buses coming from Bellevue, take 405 and the regular exit into I-90. And quickly merge to the center exit. There is time. Alternatively, Bellevue Way works too and there really should be bus lanes on it. An HOV ramp is not needed as there is little congestion from those ramps onto I-90. From Bellevue Way, the congestion is, not to anyone’s surprise, caused by people going to Renton. On 405 the ramps are almost always free in the evenings.
For buses going to Bellevue, instead of using the freeway station, it can continue to Eastgate station directly. Then from there we can have a bus/HOV only ramp onto 405 North shoulder using the regular exit. This segment of 405 rarely has traffic except some moderate traffic during peak, in which the buses can quickly merge onto the freely running HOV lanes to Bellevue TC.
So it’s absolutely wasteful to build an HOV lane for at best 1-2 mins savings when we can add a bus shoulder / bus only entrance ramp utilizing the existing infrastructure instead.
Instead build the HOV ramps from both directions in I-90 pointing to I-405 South. While not many buses use it now, that may change in the future and will alleviate the true source of congestion on I-90.
The Mercer Slough excuse is another joke. We happily built highways and road infrastructure through there, why not a train? We can elevate it and connect it to the freeway somehow if it’s such a big deal. 🤦♂️
Can we push for the 4 line to stop at South Bellevue Station?
It would likely cost a fortune and get you very little. A bus to Mercer Island would still be faster. It would have a lot more stops. No one would take a bus to Issaquah Link then wait for a train before transferring again to take a train towards Seattle. Not when they run express buses right to Mercer Island.
Connecting at South Bellevue would dramatically improve the Factoria and Eastgate stops. I don’t think the line would be “worth it” in the sense of dollars per rider, but it would at least be set up in a much more reasonable way for (theoretical) future growth
If we are building the 4 Line, it absolutely must stop at South Bellevue.
If it does, we can at least scrap the express buses and service hours completely in favor for a quick 2-4 Line transfer.
If it skips South Bellevue, we can have to continue running buses to Mercer Island which defies the entire point of having this regional rail connection.
Either scrap the 4 Line in favor for better bus service, or get it to S Bellevue.
How about half of 4 Line trains continue to SeaTac parallel the 1 Line (skipping S Bellevue)? Adds higher frequency on the bridge and Stadium-SeaTac.
The other half takes the regular route, stopping at S Bellevue then heading north to Bellevue.
That would have even better utility than the current plan. It also adds a new trip option to the East side from S King County with fewer transfers.
And a better use of Sound Transit money is to find ways to modernize and automate the Link system, enabling high frequencies and parallelism.
Early on, I wondered if there could be two cross-lake lines – one up 90 to Issaquah and one up 520 to Redmond.
Over time, I’ve realized that there are unknowns about the bridge crossing and its resilience that needs to be established with the Lake Washington crossing that would affect whether it can be done.
But even with that, there are complications with track switching/ joining at I-90 near Mercer Slough as well as near the junction just south of CID which are rather complicated and seemingly disruptive to build.
That said, ST never examined how to make a ST3 system flexible in its operational configuration. We got only one sold in ST3 and ST has been steadfast in holding to it ever since. The obsession with having DSTT2 is the core tenet of this inflexibility. Consider how much information from last month’s report was not only summarily unquantified — but how the Board wouldn’t even ask hard questions about DSTT2 like how it adds transfer difficulty and whether DSTT would still be overcrowded without it. That especially extends to unanswered questions about automation and how that would work.
And I’ve come to better understand that automated trains are generally the world standard for new lines nowadays. Driven trains are antiquated technology unless it’s being operated through an area where it’s shared with pedestrians and vehicles. It’s today’s chronological equivalent of how horse-drawn carriages became obsolete roughly between 1895 and 1925.
From station sizes (especially underground) to enabling affordable high frequencies to operating costs to the addition of platform screen doors, I’ve come to believe that ST should pause and revisit the entire proposed future Link operation with driverless train technology in 2026. The impacts appear profound enough to warrant such a basic revisiting — and it’s a matter of when rather than if. The sooner ST does this the better the ST3 money can be spent.
There is not a major ST3 project ahead that could not benefit from automation. Every extension has overbuilt stations given their boarding forecasts except for SLU/ Ballard. The resulting operation will lead to long stretches of train trips with very few passengers on board. The outer extensions have station spacing so far that the 55 mph maximum speed will be noticeable — and even this year ST has changed their intention to discontinue ST Express service north of Federal Way as a manifestation of this core specification mistake.
One other thing is that ST treats terrible rail-rail transfers as minor annoyances not worthy of mitigating. That’s partly because no such terrible transfer within Link exists today so those make decisions do not think that it’s important enough. Add to that too many decision-makers only occasionally ride transit and don’t want to get that a transfer that takes 8-12 minutes to make for an adult, able-bodied rider is the time equivalent of significantly reduced headways for the next century. The fact that ST did not pursue a change order for East Main station to have a center platform for transferring between Issaquah and Seattle upon ST3 passage (and didn’t even identify it in the ST3 package to begin with) shows the systemic stupidity and hardheadedness about transfers that pervades the agency so naturally that it never even gets aired. And we are not only will be punishing ourselves but we will also be punishing our great grandchildren too.
“Every extension has overbuilt stations given their boarding forecasts”
Outside of TIBS, SeaTac, and UW Station which have realistic reasons for why they are the way they are (mainly boiling down to topographic and infrastructure quirks that surrounds each station). I wouldn’t exactly call most of the current and upcoming link stations overbuilt. They seem in line with modern station standards for most modern metros. DSTT2 and SODO 2.0 notwithstanding, which may not even happen or may change course to be frankly honest.
The problem isn’t station size for current stations, the problem is realistically a lack of a standard design language for ST Link Stations.
While each station is going to be different in placement of the pieces, there is the issue of getting carried away with too much bespoking. I think in some ways ST has gotten better about this as time has gone on. The FWLE has a consistent design language that was appearant across all stations when I’ve used it. They used similar materials and layouts, and there were few custom items (other than the art) in the individual stations. It feels similar to what TransLink has done in upgrading older Skytrain stations like Surrey Central or Joyce-Collingwood.
There’s also the issue of the 1% for art requirement at ST stations. While I’m not against station art in principle, I’d rather see it as a seperate state grant program than eating up the already precious transit funds we have. That 1% can easily pay for a proper bank of escalators at each station for instance instead of value engineer it to be one escalator and set of stairs.
In the end, most of this could be fixed with having an in house design and engineering team rather than outsource this to a consultant agency. RATP does this in France and so can we.
Connecting at South Bellevue would dramatically improve the Factoria and Eastgate stops.
It would not improve the Eastgate stop. If you are trying to get from Eastgate to Seattle the fastest option is to take a bus that goes to Mercer Island. Likewise, the fastest option to Downtown Bellevue would be an express bus that takes advantage of new HOV lanes connecting 405 with I-90.
Factoria is a little different. The closest station is actually labeled “Richards Road” on the map. The plan is to put it close to the freeway but just north it on (you guessed it) Richards Road. A bus could make that trip in about as much time as a train. More to the point, a bus could actually serve the middle of Factoria and then go to South Bellevue. So from Factoria itself you could either take a shuttle bus to the train and then make an additional transfer or just take a bus directly to South Bellevue. Everyone would just take the bus. It is only the handful of people who are right next to the station (on Richards Road) that would benefit, and even they wouldn’t save much time versus a bus.
The main benefit of Issaquah Link is that would give riders at Richards Road a fast ride to Downtown Bellevue. Instead of taking a bus that goes up Bellevue Way they could take a train right there. There would be people transferring, but only to go east (to places like Spring District). But that’s it. Richards Road to East Main, Downtown Bellevue, Wilburton and South Kirkland (as well as transfers east). Very few will ever make the Issaquah/East Link transfer to get to Seattle no matter where the trains meet.
South Kirkland is similar. If you are standing on South Kirkland and want to go to Seattle you have two choices. Take a bus to the UW or take the train to Downtown Bellevue. Obviously if you are headed to the UW the bus is better. If you are heading to the north end of Seattle (e. g. Northgate) then 520 is better. If you are headed to the south end of Seattle (e. g. Columbia City) then you are better off with the bus as it means one less transfer. If you are headed downtown then the bus is probably better as you have double the frequency from the UW. That leaves Judkins Park and Mercer Island. So again, the main time savings for South Kirkland Park and Ride are to Wilburton, Downtown Bellevue, South Bellevue, Mercer Island, Judkins Park as well as transfers east (Spring District, etc.).
That is a very long way of saying what should be clear: Issaquah Link does not improve trips to Seattle. No way, no how. It is designed entirely for East Side travel. It’s main benefit is faster connections to Downtown Bellevue. But we could provide something much better for riders headed to Downtown Bellevue with buses.
If we are building the 4 Line, it absolutely must stop at South Bellevue.
If it does, we can at least scrap the express buses and service hours completely in favor for a quick 2-4 Line transfer.
So you want to spend billions of dollars to make it much slower and annoying to get from Issaquah to Seattle? Please. No one would want to make two transfers just to get to Seattle. Even Sound Transit realizes that buses are sometimes faster which is why they won’t get rid of the express buses from Federal Way to Downtown Seattle (even though Link makes that connection). Hell, they won’t even get rid of the express from Redmond to Downtown Seattle even though East Link is fairly fast.
I think people are missing the big picture here. It doesn’t matter if the trains meet at South Bellevue or not. Issaquah Link is not designed to improve travel from the East Side to Seattle. It just doesn’t work for that. The express buses (to Mercer Island) are faster. The main benefit of Issaquah Link — the only reason it is being built is to improve trips to Downtown Bellevue. As I wrote, you can accomplish the same thing (and then some) with bus improvements. Connect the two freeways, run some buses and you save a lot more people a lot more time.
But assume that we are held at gunpoint and must build the train. Again, why are we building it? To better serve Downtown Bellevue. So if you really want to make Issaquah Link better then serve more of Downtown Bellevue. Don’t head east to Wilburton — head northwest. How about a stop at 10th & 106th. This is far enough away from the main Downtown Bellevue station to provide additional coverage. Yet it is still surrounded by skyscrapers. Of course serving it could be a challenge. The train is heading the wrong direction (assuming you also serve East Main and Downtown Bellevue). That leaves a couple choices. One is to abandon Downtown Bellevue. After East Main (the connection point) you head northwest. You would probably add two additional stations (e. g. 2nd & 106th and 10th & 106th). Thus riders from Seattle might actually use the train. They would transfer at South Bellevue to get to a different part of Downtown Bellevue. But it would mean South Kirkland riders would backtrack if they are headed to Redmond (or the stations along the way). The other alternative is to just skip South Bellevue and East Main. Run the train east of the freeway until you get to 6th. Then the train would go west to serve the Bellevue Downtown station and continue to the other Downtown Bellevue stop (and Kirkland). Again, riders from Seattle might actually use this thing.
Of course this would be extremely expensive. In contrast, you could accomplish much the same thing with buses for less money than just the basic Issaquah Link plans. So again, we have express buses from Juanita and Downtown Kirkland running to Downtown Bellevue (via 405). We have the RapidRide K (serving some of the places in between). We have express buses from Issaquah and Eastgate running on the new 405/I-90 HOV ramps directly to the Bellevue Transit Center. But those buses don’t have to stop there. They could keep going and serve other parts of Downtown Bellevue. For some trips (e. g. Eastgate to 10th & 106th) the fictional “Issaquah Link on Steroids” would actually be better. But for most trips (e. g. Downtown Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue) the buses would be better.
“ I wouldn’t exactly call most of the current and upcoming link stations overbuilt.”
I’m mostly referring to the need to accommodate long four car trains at stations with significantly low forecasted daily boardings. However, many of the new aerial stations are designed with 60-70 steps between the street and platform when 40 or less would be ample. Finally, the sizing of large parking garages next to stations are based on arbitrary political agreements rather than analyzed needs.
How crowded has Star Lake garage been this month? No one is talking about that.
I wouldn’t exactly call most of the current and upcoming link stations overbuilt
Even some of the simpler stations seem to be overbuilt. Consider Pinehurst Station. It is pretty simple. It is dual platform with stairs, escalators and elevators on both sides. Fair enough. Except they have two pairs of stairs and escalators on each side. To the west you have a north and south entrance, to the east you have a north and south entrance. Why? There is practically nothing to the north? It abuts the freeway. To the other side is a golf course. So now you are spending all this money on northern entrances that hardly anyone will ever use. But it gets worse. They made a mistake when surveying the land. Somehow they didn’t realize that it was steep to the north. So the northwest entrance requires this huge retaining wall (you can see it from the freeway*). This added tens of millions to the cost of the station. Again, to serve hardly anyone. I get why you need redundancy but at some point you go back to the drawing board. Maybe you go with center platforms after all (since the same set of escalators can serve north and southbound riders). Maybe you just add an extra elevator on each side (in case the escalator doesn’t work and everyone is using the stairs). But instead ST made the station needlessly expensive by making sure it looked symmetrical. Yet this is is one of the cheaper stations they built. Oh, and this added expense would be one thing if it managed to straddle 130th (thus making the transfer from the buses ideal) but that isn’t the case either. They just wasted a bunch of money.
*You can see the evolution of the station from pictures taken by Google on the freeway: https://maps.app.goo.gl/j8MY3xrgayLnwimD8. It may not be obvious but a lot of the cost is due to building on the slope in between the freeway and the platform itself. One set of escalators/stairs on the west side and it would likely save a lot of money.
Aren’t the South King Metro restructure and East King Metro restructure to be in their revised operations in 2026? Isn’t some more of the North King restructure to kick in in 2026 too (to serve Pinehurst Station)?
Yes. It is likely all that will happen in 2026.
Starting last night, ST ought to make the online schedule reflect the fact of no service in some stations, when there is a planned closure of stations.
Also, the sooner the recommended track switches can be installed in the tunnel, the better.
Oddly, I don’t recall ST ever using the middle track in Chinatown Station. That track seems to have been merely an excuse to not install a center platform.
The 2 Line must come sooner. By March at the latest. This has already been a major failure in the eyes of most. At least deliver it quicker so the public can start using what they’ve paid for nearly 20 years ago!
It can only go as fast as the testing period allows.
I’d rather they make sure that everything is working as designed than doing it half baked where it opens with major issues that causes the train to be inoperable for months like what happened with the Line 1 O Train in Ottawa when it opened.
The 1 Line has been running with major issues for decades now.
If they catch this so called issues during testing, then it’s going to be more delays anyways. Do the safety tests and let the passengers on board…at least through Chinatown if not across the lake.
Won’t happen: get rid of those silly Light Rail station numbers. The numbers should increase as they go northward, and no central station should share a number with an east station. Do any riders use the station numbers?
“Do any riders use the station numbers?”
I’d think that number of riders who pay attention to numbers is higher than those who paid attention to those abstract pictograms. It does help as it lets someone on a Link train know how many stops they have to the reach the station with the number that they want. It’s best value is when a rider is actually on a train —so it’s ok to have stations with the same number as long as they’re stops on different lines.
I would agree that northern stations should have been numbered higher. The numbering does feel backwards for north-south travel. The current system does however give stations to the east higher numbers and that does feel intuitive. Think of it as a subtle way to remind us that catering to the Eastside (or thinking east-west) is of primary importance.
“Think of it as a subtle way to remind us that catering to the Eastside (or thinking east-west) is of primary importance.” = deadpan humorous line
They likely picked the orientation they did to avoid giving CID station a 4 in it’s station code. 4 is similar to 13 in many East Asian cultures, as 4 sounds like death in Chinese and Japanese.
And 50 was likely picked as the number for Westlake as its a large enough number that you won’t likely run out of numbers end to end in going to Everett or Tacoma and them saying that this is the center hub of the system to which it’ll radiate out from in all directions.
Sound Transit’s government relations group successfully lobbies state legislature to enforce the payment of vehicle tabs by returning it to a primary enforcement, adding more tiers of fines for being late beyond 0-2 months and 2 months and over to incentivize compliance; allow citing motorists captured on camera for red light, right turn, school zone, construction zone, bus lane, HOT lane cameras (which could have speed cameras added to them) to be cited for expired tabs as well to help with their revenue shortfall.
Sound Transit breaks up remaining extensions into shorter segments, e.g., returning Everett Link’s first extension to Mariner/128th.
Seattle/Paine Field International secures a new airline to replace Frontier.
Except for the last one, the first two are “wishful thinking,” as ST is inflexible.