Adam (aka AdamDoesNotExist) is at it again, traveling from Washington DC to Boston via only local buses, regional trains, and ferries. Previously we covered his San Francisco to Seattle trip. DC to Boston takes 3 days via local transit, vs 6 hours via Amtrak Acela.
Part 1: Washington DC to New York City:
Part 2: New York City to Boston:
This is an open thread.
From the Urbanist a couple weeks back…. https://www.theurbanist.org/2025/12/30/op-ed-seattles-path-to-fund-inclusionary-zoning-and-boost-homebuilding/
Could Seattle housing policy be made any more complicated? The whole inclusionary zoning thing needs to just go straight out the window and some sort of a simpler fee structure needs to be put in place. It costs a lot of money in fees to build anything in Seattle AND it’s awfully complicated. The City needs to pick one.
Seattle should never give any builder a tax break for building market rate housing… the sort of tax breaks handed out by Portland or Tacoma as part of inclusive zoning are just a financial bomb set to blow up in the future.
As part of inclusionary zoning/affordable housing plan, Seattle needs to set rules making sure the amount of low income housing and/or social housing stays at an agreed upon low percentage.
Mayor Wilson should try to cut fees and regulations to jump start market rate housing starts to try to offset the property tax loses that adding social housing is going to cause.
The whole idea of charging market-rate developers for affordable housing or or infrastructure is misguided — the city as a whole needs it, so everybody should pay for it, not just developers of new buildings.
However, the state severely limits what kinds of taxes a city can raise and the maximum rate. New building impact fees and inclusionary zoning are two things the state allows, that aren’t covered by the Eyman tax limits or the legislature’s hesitation.
Mike Orr,
True, Washington State could stand a major tax reform, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I think Washington cities should work with the State government for a “growth bond” concept that allows for the City to barrow the up-front money for new development and pro-rate the costs in a slight bump in property taxes for 10 years to repay the bond. This might spur growth of bigger multi-unit projects even if interest rates are higher.
The worst idea, and I believe this is coming shortly, is Seattle asking the State to sign off on bonds to fund social housing…. leaving the tax payers on the hook to pay off the bonds, for the upkeep of the buildings and never getting a penny of property taxes out of these units.
People who can’t afford high rents can’t afford property taxes. But they need housing anyway. Who do you think would pay those property taxes on those units?
Mike Orr,
Seattle is now in uncharted water on taxes. Most of America that actually functions has a long standing, unwritten agreement with a majority of residents about property taxes. Most Americans own their own home and are building wealth. The communities they live in tax the value of those homes. It is a partnership that’s worked since the beginning of this nation.
Seattle has a majority of renters and that’s the problem. The landlords build wealth, not the renter. But it’s the renter who ends up paying the taxes. If you’re renting, property tax is working like a VAT (value added tax) that you’re paying without even knowing it. Property tax is highly regressive tax for renters and not nearly as big of burden for home owners.
Seattle is running on this 400 year old tax system that’s still working for the vast majority of the Country. The problem with urbanism is it’s never had an answer to what replaces the home owner/local property taxes agreement.
Building any housing, low income or any sort of social housing that’s tax exempt just makes things worse for the City budget. As it stands, people making $80k a year would be let of the hook form property taxes if they moved into social housing.
I agree. I get the main idea. It is similar to a minimum wage. In theory an increase in minimum way increases unemployment. But in reality — as long as it isn’t too high — it actually decreases overall unemployment. It has a minimal impact on how many people employers will hire while reducing income disparity. The latter leads to higher employment. It is economics 102.
The same idea — at least the first part — applies to housing. In theory by allowing more development you are giving the property owners a huge gift. They are going to build housing anyway, might as well tax them a bit. But again, it needs to be at just the right level, otherwise you stifle development. Unfortunately, it isn’t that level. There are plenty of projects (at the margins) that simply don’t make sense if you tack on extra taxes. There are also a limited number of projects simply because we have only zoned a handful of places for density and many of the owners who own property in those areas have no interest in selling. Thus you end up with car lots in Lake City that remain car lots despite sky-high housing prices. The average person thinks “Surely it makes sense to move those lots to a place where land is much cheaper and build apartments there?” To which the land owner says “It is more complicated than that, and stop calling me Shirley.”
The regulations should be much simpler and much broader. The latter should be the highest priority. There is simply no reason to force (small) developers into this sort of thing. This is just one of three units (what the zoning allows). Technically it is a condo. This is (I think) the DADU. There is also an ADU. There is also a main house. It is expensive to build three units in this manner and yet they are extremely common in Seattle. That’s because it is the most density allowed. It is such a stupid, fundamentally expensive way to build things. It would probably be cheaper to build a half dozen town houses. It would definitely be a lot more lucrative. Of course the best thing from a developer’s standpoint is to build a three story apartment, like those a few blocks away. But despite the fact that those buildings are no taller (and arguably more attractive) you can’t do that. Why? Zoning.
This is the biggest problem. But at the same time, even for areas where they allow six story buildings (like Paris — what a hell hole) there are ridiculous restrictions and hoops you have to jump through. Parking requirements, setbacks, design reviews so that all the buildings look the same (wouldn’t want something unusual like the Smith Tower) and of course, fees. Fees to provide something that is a fundamental right. Why not put a tax on food to pay for food stamps. Yes, the fees are that stupid. The mayor should sit down with a developer (or developers) and ask them how she can make their jobs easier. How can she create a housing boom in Seattle. Then she should implement those changes (along with the others mentioned in the previous paragraph).
Not sure this has been featured before but I thought it was a fun watch
1980 Walking Tour of Seattle – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ3sd9GYKy4
THANK YOU! I’ll add it to the list for a secondary movie sometime. It’s important to keep track of what has changed and what hasn’t.
There were fewer tourist attractions then, so ones that seem minor now were more major then, and visitors were content with them.
That yellow shirt at 1:21 reminds me of the Captain Kirk shirt I had in elementary school.
You don’t want to know what transit was like then. Most Seattle Metro routes were 30 minutes; most suburban routes 60 minutes. Three quarters of the suburban routes were peak expresses to downtown, useless for traveling within the suburbs or at other times or to other parts of Seattle. There was no Link of course, just express buses. Community Transit didn’t exist, so I don’t think there were local routes in Snohomish County, just the 4xx peak expresses which were then operated by Metro. There was no express to Tacoma, and no off-peak express to Lynnwood, so even when CT filled in local routes you still had to transfer at Federal Way or Aurora Village, a 2-hour trip each direction. I attended a church in north Lynnwood in the early 90s and did that Sundays.
Not only no Link but no bus tunnel either. I don’t think there was much in the way of bus lanes, either. Then again, traffic wasn’t that bad downtown.
I would love for regional trips by local transit to get easier as a result of all the money that has been spent on the light rail system.
Federal Way to Olympia two-way all day ought to become a thing, at least on days the Legislature is in session, without a long wait in the middle of nowhere in Lakewood.
There ought to be a better path between Lynnwood and Bellingham than a 3-seat-ride where two legs are very infrequent and poorly-timed. The frequent leg, STX 512, would be much improved if it could skip the Ash Way loop-de-loop, and leave the milk runniness to CT 201/202 (except when the 201/202 is not running). The other straightforward fix would be to through-route Skagit Transit routes 80x and 90x.
And then there are the little things, like getting between Colman Ferry Dock and a light rail station without hiring a Lyft.
Other countries would have done this long ago, had Lakewood-Olympia and Everett-Bellingham express buses every 30-60 minutes full time. This would complement the state’s climate goals: making transit a competitive alternative to driving.
I would love for regional trips by local transit to get easier as a result of all the money that has been spent on the light rail system.
They are kind of different beasts though. I know Link is a hybrid but it is still basically a metro (for a city that doesn’t have another metro). The best thing for regional, city-to-city transit buses or the old railways. You can combine the two (with bus tunnels and S-Bahn) but we didn’t. Instead we built a metro that extends out really far. They skimped on the stations but there are still a bunch.
A regional transit system needs a different investment. You either run trains (like Amtrak) or run buses. I see different issues for Olympia than I do Bellingham. The (Amtrak) train station for Olympia is nowhere near the city itself. I think the only solution is buses. The good news is that while our subway line is needlessly long, it has great termini (for now). A bus that is going from Olympia to Seattle can stop at Federal Way. It is just a matter of investing more money into a regional bus system. It isn’t really up to Sound Transit (they actually do a good job covering their areas) it is more about the state. Olympia and Bellingham aren’t part of the Sound Transit area. The state needs to chip in. But the state could work with Sound Transit to provide additional service. It wouldn’t cost that much to extend some (or all) of the 594 buses. I could also see them extending a few 592 buses and running them bidirectionally during peak (as skipping Tacoma would save some time).
For Bellingham I see a combination of improved (Amtrak) trains as well as some buses. For the buses it would be the same idea. I agree, skip Ash Way with the 512. Then extend it to Bellingham (as an express) with stops at places like Mount Vernon and Marysville otherwise.
That would mean changing the nature of the fares. You wouldn’t charge the same amount to go from Bellingham to Lynnwood as you do Everett to Lynnwood. I could see them charging extra to go to Olympia as well.
Ross, I disagree with the fact of having the 512 skip Ash Way. Another thing to point out is that Bellingham is NOT in the ST district, so you would need to have another system run the route. The thing I would like to see is a Mount Vernon to Lynnwood express by CT. It would take the 90X’s path (with stops at Stanwood I-5, Smokey Point, I-5/116th, I-5/4th, Everett, South Everett, Mariner, and Ash Way). It’s basically the 905, but not going to Stanwood. It would as well run frequently 7 days a week and replace the 201/202 from Everett to Lynnwood, the 90X, and the 512.
ST Express 595 runs way outside the district to Gig Harbor.
ST Express 592 extended all the way to Olympia for a year under a pilot project paid for by the state.
CT 904 and 905 skip Everett Station, making them not ideal candidate routes for extending to Bellingham.
Why do you want to keep Ash Way P&R on the 512?
It’s not worth worrying spending a lot of energy on details like whether the 512 or the 201/202 or both serve Ash Way P&R. There are tradeoffs no matter what ST or CT do.
There is an hourly bus connecting the Amtrak station in Olympia to downtown Olympia, but it takes 35 minutes. There’s also not much around the Olympia station while you wait.
If you can work with the timetable, you’re probably better off just taking the FlixBus/Greyhound that goes directly to downtown Olympia from Seattle.
It is worth the effort to streamline the 512 for those who ride it and have to repeatedly suffer the Ash Way time sink.
It might also convince some who insisted on keeping the 510 going all the way downtown to accept the express ride to Lynnwood as the better option.
The saved platform hours could be rolled into improved frequency.
At any rate, a 15-minute headway bus from Federal Way, connecting from a 10-minute headway train makes me think ST has to hire a Subcomandante of the Bus Rider Experience to implement logical bus schedules.
“It is worth the effort to streamline the 512 for those who ride it and have to repeatedly suffer the Ash Way time sink.”
Some of those riders are going to/from Ash Way P&R. It’s a major stop.
The only thing needed to fix Ash Way is to complete the center HOV ramp. Why they left it half finished is baffling.
Yeah, adding a north Ash Way ramp and converting it to HOV use would do the trick, it would also relieve congestion on the street of what feels like dying of 164th.
Another thing to point out is that Bellingham is NOT in the ST district
Yes, obviously. That is why I wrote that the STATE would have to pay for it.
Yes, the long term solution is to complete the ramps from the Ash Way Park & Ride to the north. It wouldn’t cost that much as they basically already have a stub.
But until then, the 512 should skip Ash Way. The 201/202 is just as fast from Ash Way to Lynnwood. If you are going from Ash Way to Lynnwood it is basically the same. You lose a little frequency but the 513 also does the same thing. The Orange Line also connects the two areas (albeit not as quickly). If peak-crowding is an issue than Community Transit or Sound Transit should offer a peak-only bus that goes Swamp Creek/Ash Way/Lynnwood TC.
If you are going from Ash Way to Everett it takes a little bit longer via the 201/202, but not much. Historically, very few people made this trip. Back when the 512 carried had a lot more boardings, about 30 people a day went north from Ash Way. These riders can manage with the 201/202 as it is only a little bit slower.
Yet it would be quite a bit faster for the 512 to skip Ash Way, especially during peak. The bus not only has to take the regular exit (which forces it to deal with traffic lights and surface transit) but it has to deal with freeway traffic as well. If it skipped Ash Way then it would live up to its moniker and be a real express, providing fast trips for the majority of riders (those going between Downtown Everett and Lynnwood). It would also save ST some money in service. This could go into running that peak bus (if it is even necessary).
It’s not worth worrying spending a lot of energy on details like whether the 512 or the 201/202 or both serve Ash Way P&R. There are tradeoffs no matter what ST or CT do.
Of course there are. But using that logic we would never make any changes. Buses like the 41 and 73 would still be running downtown (infrequently) because some people benefit from it. But it made sense to truncate those routes for the same reason it makes sense for the 512 to skip Ash Way, which is:
1) The vast majority of riders would be better off with a change.
2) The people that would be worse off wouldn’t be hurt that much by it.
Consider another detour: The one the 50 takes to serve the front door of the VA. Without that stop, people at the VA (some in wheelchairs) would have to get themselves out to the curb and across the street. Not that many people would have to do this but it is still a tough thing to ask them to do. In contrast, what would the people do if Sound Transit skipped Ash Way? Take another bus. That’s it. Just take another bus.
Consider another alternative. ST could run a peak-only bus between the two parking lots during peak (to complement the 201/202 and 513). For those trying to get from Ash Way to Lynnwood TC during peak this would mean exactly the same level of service. This means that only a tiny number of riders would notice the change (other than the new route number). Very few people take the 512 from Ash Way outside of peak. Very few ride from Ash Way to Everett. Those handful of riders would still have a good alternative (the 201/202).
The detour to Ash Way is so time consuming and the trip via the freeway that this would save quite a bit of money for ST (even accounting for the extra cost of peak service).
The state is already funding Skagit routes 80x and 90x as inter-county connectors. Splicing them together would not change that.
An operator change might be needed in the middle. Transit agencies know how to do that (except maybe when ST argues ridiculously that the spine needs to be split).
“The 201/202 is just as fast from Ash Way to Lynnwood.”
That segment may go away when Swift Gold takes over the northern half of the route.
“The state is already funding Skagit routes 80x and 90x as inter-county connectors.”
The problem is their infrequency and the times they don’t operate. That goes up and down from year to year. The state funds them, good, that’s better than in the past. But it should fund them at a level where they could be a complete transit solution for north-south trips, rather than serving just some kinds of trips and leaving the rest to cars or even less-frequent Amtrak.
It is highly unlikely that the southern portion of CT 201/202 will go away when the Swift Gold Line opens. Rather, it would likely be renumbered as CT 100 or something similar, since it will no longer leave the ST portion of the county.
The 201/202 provides unique one-seat connections between Lynnwood and Ash Way (the street north of the P&R), Lynnwood and Mariner P&R (no longer served by a 400- or 900-series commuter route), Ash Way and Mariner P&R, Ash Way and Everett Station, and Mariner and Everett Station. I bet they’ll also take the opportunity to add a stop at South Everett Freeway Station.
For those that make occasional visits to Portland:
TriMet proposed cutbacks for August 2026
https://trimet.org/servicecuts/
A bunch of routes would be eliminated and replaced by efforts at coverage routes that would zigzag around. Eg: see the elimination of route 32 and making 34 attempt to serve both its old corridor and the former 32 corridor. Route 10 becomes a zigzag route to try to serve both its old corridor and that left unserved by eliminating the 19.
Anyway, there’ll be some changes down here come August, no matter what the ultimate map looks like.
Today I saw a train crossing the lake with 4 cars. So exciting to see!