Reminder: From 10pm on Friday, Jan. 23, through Saturday, Jan. 24, the DSTT will be closed between Capitol Hill and SODO stations for signal upgrades. Shuttle buses will run every 10-15 minutes. Normal service will resume on Sunday, Jan 25, to serve the NFC Championship game. The Los Angeles Rams will play the Seahawks at Lumen Field at 3:30pm. Edit: the original closure was scheduled for the full weekend, but has been shortened to avoid impacting service for the major sports event.

Local Transit News:

Land Use & Housing:

Commentary & Miscellaneous:

This is an Open Thread. We’re always looking for new voices for the Blog. Contact us if you are interested in contributing to Seattle Transit Blog.

133 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: like it’s 1999”

  1. Any idea why Seattle has such wider/better bus stop spacing than average in the US? Was that an intentional effort by someone at Metro/city planning, or is it just that Seattle is a younger city? Or something about the terrain?

    (The United States needs fewer bus stops Works In Progress article states that US bus stops are spaced much more closely in many cities, which slows down busses with little advantage to passengers. Seattle’s spacing is more in line with the European average.)

    1. With the rapidride they usually remove some bus stops.

      Also (I think) king county usually pushes forward with the bus stop rebalancing a bit more aggressively. Whereas inn other cities they kinda give up too easily when there is public outlash against it

    2. I don’t know the answer to your question. I know RapidRide lines often go through a “stop diet”. They will get rid of stops that are deemed excessive. The goal is to have European style stop-spacing which is about 400 meters (or about five blocks on Aurora). This is different than Swift in Snohomish County which are limited-stop buses that also have a secondary (regular) bus serving stops a lot closer together. But I doubt the influence of a few RapidRide buses is enough to make a difference. It may just be a statistical anomaly (or luck). I’m not sure how they calculate things. An express bus has a huge gap between stops. There are streets like SR-522 (Lake City/Bothell Way) that have big gaps in stops just because there is so little there.

      Jarrett Walker has written about the subject: https://humantransit.org/2010/11/san-francisco-a-rational-stop-spacing-plan.html. Getting rid of stops is always controversial. If anything, I would guess we would have more justification for keeping the stops closer together, given our hills. I think in general you have to look at particular sections and see if a moving the stops around makes sense. In some areas I think the stops are too far apart, in others they are too close together. Quite often they are just on the wrong corner (this is especially true for transfers).

      1. It is crazy that there are sometimes two stops at the same block.
        It requires very extreme level of precision to hit the stop requested button in order to request the right stop.

    3. I know they did a stop diet on a bunch of the longer North Seattle routes about ten years ago. The 5 and the 40 used to have stops every other block or so, but they cut it down and in doing so made these routes significantly more useful to all riders.

    4. Yes, in addition to the RapidRide corridors mentioned by others, there was a (highly worthwhile!) effort to consolidate stops on busy routes in the early 2010s. Also some of the worst offender routes (e.g. 25 through Montlake) were deleted altogether.

      1. Yes, it seems to me that Metro is much more willing to cut stops than cut frequency when it needs to reduce service hours on a route. I don’t know if this mentality was prevalent before the 2010s, but it certainly was a well-used tool (among many others) to stave off service cuts from the Great Recession.

    5. Metro was notorious in the 80s for stops every two blocks. In the U-District where east-west streets alternate 2-3 blocks apart (45th, 47th, 50th, 52nd, 55th), all of those had bus stops. 15th northbound even had stops at both ends of the 42nd-43rd block.

      In the 2000s Metro started consolidating stops one street at a time, a practice later called “stop diets”. The first I was aware of was the University Way renovation in 2000. 15th got it too, I think later, when Metro got motivated to speed up buses there. The wave of RapidRides since 2010 were all about stop consolidation. In the 2010s, two stops I used on the current 8 and 11 were removed, and a third one was also removed: that’s three stops gone between Melrose Ave and Broadway. One of them came back a couple years later but on a different block (the eastbound one on Denny just east of Melrose).

      You can still see vestiges of the 2-block spacing where the stops haven’t changed, such as eastern NE 65th Street. The argument is probably that it’s so low-density there that the stops are often unused, and the rolling hills necessitate closer stop spacing so that people don’t have to walk up or down a steep hill to the bus stop. I’ve seen other areas with unchanged spacing but I don’t remember off the top of my head. Maybe the 10’s tail.

    6. If a bus has very low ridership, stop diets don’t do much. After all, low ridership means the bus is blowing by most of its stops without actually stopping, and, when it does stop, very few people are delayed.

      This creates an incentive to have very tight stop spacing at first, but when a route increases ridership, eventually, the delays become more pronounced and stop diets become necessary.

      1. “low ridership means the bus is blowing by most of its stops without actually stopping”

        The driver still has to look to see if somebody is waiting at the stop. That can slow the bus down if the bench is further back from the street or there’s a visibility barrier ahead of it, so the driver has to slow down and look right and be prepared to stop if necessary.

      2. Also, having a stop means the bus needs to stay in the right lane, no matter how much traffic is there.

    7. In my experience, there is less popular resistance to stop consolidation in Seattle than in other places. In Philadelphia there were organized protests (groups of people walking into the street and halting buses) when SEPTA tried to consolidate stops. So last I checked, the buses there usually stop every block. In Seattle, stops are removed sometimes – the stop spacing is much better than it used to be here, in fact – and the complaints are very minimal, often absent.

    8. Stop diets are tricky. If a bus skips lots of stops normally, it doesn’t help travel speed. It helps most if a bus is usually stopping at every stop normally.

      On the other hand. It is very helpful for incorporating bus signal priority. A bus priority signal system can’t easily predict how to time downstream signals for the bus beyond just the next stop. At a macro scale, longer distances between stops is how Link can get through the MLK signals for longer distances.

      And sometimes it’s good to think about offering an overlay limited stop bus route rather than create a generic route with less stops.

    9. Then there’s places like Eastgate which had big bus cuts in the last year however has a new bus route, the 203, that goes down SE Newport Way yet manages to not have any stops on the street for the community center, library or residential neighborhood at 142nd or 145th.

    10. Metro’s new standard is a stop every quarter to third of a mile. The old spacing was around a sixth of a mile. That may have been inherited from their streetcar predecessors; I don’t know what the streetcar-era spacing was. Higher-level service like RapidRide can be at the wider end of that range, since people will walk further to more frequent/faster service.

    11. Because some places with denser stops have minimum ridership and not interested in running frequent service, so they think denser stop can justify longer headway, which is absurd to me.
      I don’t think 30-minute headway service with stop every block and 15-minute headway service with stop every 1000 ft are the same thing because waiting for bus is not the entire part of the experience.

    12. Yes, Metro had an internal debate about stop spacing that began in the 1990s. The wider stop spacing eventually won out and is in policy (e.g., service guidelines and TRF guidelines). It is about the geometry of transit, walking speed, and waits. In ridership modeling, the coefficient for waiting is about twice that of walking or in-vehicle time. See pages 21 and 22 (6). See the deviation guideline (5) and apply that to a single stop; what spacing leads to ridership maximization?
      https://kingcountymetro.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/King-County-Metro-Service-Guidelines-July-2021.pdf

  2. ST had messages playing at the stations yesterday that the 1 Line would be running regular service on Sunday, January 25. They did not manage to fully update at least one alert page, I see.

    1. It looks like they’ve updated the service alert now to show normal service resuming on Sunday morning. I’ll update the post.

  3. It would be nice to see where the 60 gets bogged down the most. I’m assuming in Cap Hill and First Hill. It would also be interesting to see if the 60 became less reliable after the induction of the G-Line. If Metro had the resources, the 60 should be split between West Seattle Beacon Hill and Beacon Hill Capitol Hill

    1. The times I’ve ridden Route 60 north of Dakota, I observed a very slow segment around Beacon Hill station. I even got off a bus the stop before Beacon Hill Station and walked, still getting to the station entrance before the bus did.

      1. Going northbound, the left turn from McClellan onto Beacon Ave can be really problematic, as turners need to wait for pedestrians crossing Beacon and vehicles going westbound on McClellan. I’ve seen busses sit at that light through multiple light cycles.
        Not sure why SDOT didn’t improve the light cycles at that intersection during the recent Beacon Ave project, as westbound and eastbound traffic should really have their own dedicated steps in the cycle to promote safer pedestrian crossings and improve left turns.

      2. @kling.kong .. this is a problematic pattern throughout the city and SDOT does nothing about it – even during new projects like these. The city lacks left turn arrows, forcing motorists to gun it as the light turns red. The endangers pedestrians and oncoming traffic.

      3. Yeah, unprotected left turns are a really bad idea. They are extremely dangerous, accounting for the highest percentage of accidents. They are about twenty times more dangerous than right turns (according to this).

        Left turns also screw up traffic. Whenever possible, the city should simply ban left turns and force drivers to make three right turns. The problem is that in a lot of areas this isn’t practical or desirable. One assumption is that traffic shouldn’t be shifted to residential streets. I many cases makes this makes it more difficult to force three right turns. Lacking that, the city should err on the side of safety and add protected left turns. The drawback is that this tends to make the light cycle really long.

        For example consider the intersection of 15th NE and Northgate Way. They recently added left turn arrows for all directions. This is good — it is much safer. But it also means that it takes a lot longer to get through the intersection. You could force drivers to take three rights but that would have them going through the residential streets. People would complain.

        In the case you mentioned, it seems like they should just ban left turns (except buses). I see no reason why a car (or truck) needs to turn left there. It is surrounded by arterials and thus other options. That would mean that at worst a bus has to wait for a yellow light to turn left while also making the intersection safer for pedestrians.

        This seems like one of those “easy wins” for transit. Ban left turns from eastbound McClellan to northbound Beacon Avenue (except transit). Put that in the bucket for the new mayor.

      4. The slowness I experienced was southbound. Left turns discussed here are a non-issue southbound. The rides northbound have not been as excessively time consuming.

        The complex issue was first that only one bus at a time can unload at Beacon Hill Station. There were buses in front of mine.

        Then there was how all traffic is backed up behind loading and unloading buses so even a longer bus stop would not often help .

        Then there were excessive red light times at intersections on either side of the stop, thanks to the several phases at each light. (Protected left turn phases make for longer red light times.)

        The base challenge is the area has very narrow street widths and very tight intersection corners. No amount of added signal phases will get buses to move faster or easier .

        I can’t say what solution would help. Having spent time in Boston with its narrow streets, I could see that a reconfigured intuitive one-way street network is one solution to consider. Unlike Downtown, one way streets here would not result in high moving speeds because they’d be narrow with stop signs every few hundred feet. The locals may initially resent having to drive a few more feet to get to their homes — but directness today is so limited by congestion that it could be an improvement. The blocks are also very tiny near the station so one-way streets would barely increase driving distance.

      5. I can’t say what solution would help.

        Again, banning left turns would help. You could get rid of the protected left turn along with the unprotected one. So Beacon & McClellan would not allow any left turns at all. That eliminates any backup due to people trying to turn left while also making the cycle shorter. This would push southbound drivers to 15th. 15th & McClellan is already a four way stop. Thus you don’t have to any additional management — drivers would do this: https://maps.app.goo.gl/c78jf2X8K3SWrNQK7. Any backup would occur southbound on 15th prior to McClellan. This wouldn’t hurt the bus. Likewise, going northbound the traffic would use 17th like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/RKt5xdHn5WjrWWhX6. Again, this is OK. You don’t need to modify anything. Just ban left turns (except buses) and you’ve made a significant improvement.

        Then there is Lander & Beacon. I’m not sure what they are trying to do there. First thing I would do (regardless of anything else) is get rid of the left turns there (assuming they are legal). It also looks legal do drive across Beacon on Lander. Yet there is no signal there. There is a signal for Beacon (which I assume is triggered by pedestrians). They need to add a signal for crossing cars or force cars to turn right (onto Beacon) from both directions. Again, that is a safety thing.

        At 15th & Lander they again have unprotected left turns. I think the simplest thing to do is just ban those. If they really want left turns there then make that intersection a four-way stop (just like 15th & McClellan is a four-way stop. This wouldn’t help the buses but it wouldn’t hurt them (while making things safer).

      6. There were buses in front of mine.

        That is not really a problem with the street but a problem with the routes. It contributes to bus bunching. Some bunching is bound to happen but there are ways to reduce its occurrence. In this case the bus only has three routes: the 36, 60 and 107. The 36 runs every ten minutes midday while the 60 runs every twelve. The two buses should run at the same frequency (ideally every ten minutes) and be synchronized with each other. That way riders along the shared section would have five (or six) minute headways and you reduce the chances of those two buses bunching. The 107 runs every fifteen minutes. You can run it offset the other buses but you will still occasionally bunch. For example if the 36 goes by the station on the hour the 60 would go by on the fives (1:05, 1:15, etc.). The 107 could go by two minutes after the hour (so 1:02, 1:17, etc.). That is cutting it really close and you are bound to have the occasional conflict (as a bus gets delayed or runs fast) but it shouldn’t be common.

    2. I am curious about the segment on Madison Street post G Line. What was the Route 60 flow in 2018, before construction, and what is it post G Line?

  4. Apologies if this will be a stand-alone post, but The Urbanist is reporting that ST is seriously lobbying Olympia to allow for 75-year bonds.

    https://www.theurbanist.org/2026/01/21/sound-transit-seeks-hail-mary-financial-tool-to-complete-st3-buildout/

    In sorry, but obligating the entire population (including all the way through their life expectancy (US average life expectancy is 78 years) is just taking financing too far!

    That doesn’t even get into the basic public need to revisit plans every so often to respond to land use changes and behavior changes. Why commit the entire region to build something that may be of low value in a few decades as things change?

    1. The number I haven’t seen is how useful 75-year bonds might actually be. ST already uses a variety of bonds ranging from 30-40 years. As reminded in the article, Scott Kubly wrote last week that 75-year bonds cost 2.5-3 times as much in interest over the life of the bond.

      My guess is that ST identified 75-year bonds as a potentially-useful option that would cost little-to-no political capital to unlock (but requires some legislative work), so they’re going for it so they can say they’re actually trying everything. Future money is unlimited! Don’t worry about it!

      1. Yeah, this is a terrible idea.

        I don’t think the crazy bond ideas are going to stay confined to Sound Transit either. It’s possible the current Seattle government might look at social housing as something fit to issue long term revenue bounds for. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenuebond.asp

        I think getting transit advocates to curb their enthusiasm over what Sound Transit can actually afford in the next 10 years is the first step towards better regional transit.

    2. It does seem extreme.

      But how would this work, logistically? If Sound Transit wanted to start issuing longer-term bonds, wouldn’t they have to have another public vote?

      1. ST only needs to go to voters to exceed its debt limit (1.5% of real property value). ST3 enabled ST to continue levying anywhere between 0 and 100% of its current tax rates indefinitely to cover operations, maintenance, debt service, and other costs; basically anything other than capital projects.

        My guess is that ST is considering pushing certain ST3 projects past the 35-40 year mark in a very-long-range financial plan. 75-year bonds wouldn’t allow ST to exceed its debt ceiling, but they would (presumably) have reduced annual debt service costs. This would open budget capacity to either pay off other debts sooner and/or pay for capital projects directly.

      2. Increasing debt capacity would require 60% support from voters and ST has never had a measure exceed that threshold.

      3. I don’t know whether a vote would be required, since lengthening the bond term wasn’t anticipated in ST3’s enabling legislation or public vote. What would require a vote is raising the tax rate higher than ST3 ballot measure asked for. But just extending the bond term limit isn’t raising the tax rate.

      4. Christopher Cramer,

        No, I doubt a public vote will ever happen again for Sound Transit, or at least until internal polling points towards ST4 passing. What 75 year bonds do is give the system money now…. that our grandkids get stuck paying back.

        You can look at the current Sound Transit is a success. Most of the completed projects actually work like they’re supposed to. Or you can look at Sound Transit as a failure because ST can’t afford to build the promised projects at the bottom of the list. I personally think it’s time to declare victory and stop tunneling where better bus service will work just fine, but that’s my choice. I’m OK with other points of view.

        Bonds are not a choice or a point of view. Any money borrowed would need to paid back. Some of the debt load ST is already spread out for roughly one generation. (35 years) The US home mortgage, maybe the biggest wealth builder for the working class in history, is also 30 years. One generation makes a decision, that generation pays for it. (Roughly, I do understand that a 35 year bond can split some people’s life time)

        What anybody who is pitching a 50 0r 75 year bond is really saying is…. “I know best and my grandkids, or at least that unborn generation will need to pay for things I WANT NOW!!!!! We have no right to saddle the unborn with our debt.

    3. “Apologies if this will be a stand-alone post”

      No article has been started on it. I’m hoping the attempt fails at the legislature. I’m not sure I’d support an editorial against it; I’d have to feel very strongly and permanently for an editorial. (We haven’t even had editorials against DSTT2, something we feel stronger about.) But we might have a regular article on it at some point.

  5. Since the First Hill Streetcar exists and is moderately popular, is it best to just leave it as is and improve Jackson and Broadway bus service around it, rather than eliminating it in a larger transit renovation?

    1. When operating a more expensive technology ends up creating rider travel speeds slower than the base technology of buses, it’s rather wasteful to keep operating it as is.

      And trying to fix productivity after it’s built is very difficult and messy. It can be a better use of transit money to let go of it rather than fix it — and use that money to offer more bus service to places that would use it more.

      FHSC has been operating for about a decade now. It seems due for a deep dive to see the ridership patterns and needs of its riders — with an eye to seeing if it can be more productive. And it may be that the best way to make it productive enough is to significantly reconfigure the other ways that the streets are used. SDOT seems to have over-committed the purpose of the streets on the route to do too many things to the point that transit will continue to move very slowly — and zap productivity and ridership.

      If the speeds can’t be helped, an alternative strategy would be to create a niche market for it. Open air cars? Party themed cars with upbeat music? Drivers in animal outfits, or as ad lib comics with microphones? If speeds can’t be helped, then making a ride more of a premium event (changing the perception of slow travel speeds) is seemingly a possible way to create enough interest in riding the service.

      It’s a case study about what happens when elected officials draw lines and dots on a map but ignores its productivity even when planning it. Our Seattle leaders need to stop drawing routes for expensive things because they look good and popular on a map.

      1. It is short enough of a route that it can afford to be slow. It has to be faster than walking, not driving. It can afford to wait at red lights. But it cannot afford to be infrequent. It really has to run at 5 minute frequency to be faster than walking and more convenient than, and take some demand from, the parallel busses. With the 1st Ave. extension, it would also take some demand off of Link on event and game days. Think more people mover, and less bus on rails. Few people want to wait 10-15 minutes to go a few blocks.

      2. I agree that frequency is more important than speed but it still shouldn’t be that slow. The buses are fairly fast on Third Avenue *and* frequent which is why it works so well. The best thing to do is combine the streetcar with a bus on Broadway (like the 60). Then riders would have frequent service on Broadway. Even if they are headed to CID (from Broadway) and miss the streetcar they could take the 60 and transfer at Jackson (since there is really good combined headways on Jackson).

        As for First Avenue, it would never be able to compete with Third Avenue in terms of frequency, capacity — any of that. So much so that you could just run one or two of the Third Avenue buses on First and no one would notice it on Third. Unlike a streetcar extension, this would essentially be free (not only when it comes to building it, but operating it as well).

    2. “FHSC … seems due for a deep dive to see the ridership patterns and needs of its riders”

      Michael, article opportunity.

      1. I’ve asked Metro about stop level ridership data for the streetcar routes and was told that they do not have it. My request to SDOT is pending.

    3. Depends on the cost of abandonment and how willing the City is in the long term to provide funds. I’m not personally a fan of either streetcar, and without a connection between the two it seems inevitable that at least the SLU line will be permanently abandoned (probably when the Ballard link construction closes it for like 8 years or whatever).

      And I don’t see why we couldn’t just add side bus lanes and leave the streetcar in mixed traffic. Sure, that’s not ideal but it’s better than the converse. The 7/14/36/106 are way busier than the Streetcar.

      1. It is likely that abandoning the streetcar would make the city money. Not only would it save money in operations but it would sell off the land to store the streetcars (and the streetcars themselves). Metro might have to buy buses to compensate but they would likely come out ahead.

    4. I like the FHSC but it should probably get re-evaluated if/when we get a Broadway RapidRide line. For now it would be very nice to have an overlapping line on Broadway from Yesler to John to improve frequency up and down the corridor.

      1. For now it would be very nice to have an overlapping line on Broadway from Yesler to John to improve frequency up and down the corridor.

        Yeah, like the 60.

    5. The SLU line definitely needs to be axed, though I could envision it running during the summer only for tourists. As for the First Hill line, the stop at 7th Ave should be deleted. It’s too close to 5th Ave. Signal priority needs to be installed, especially between 1st Ave and 12th Ave. It’s constantly stopping at multiple red lights and is practically useless when a stadium event lets out.

    6. If we are focused purely on transit, then we should get rid of it. It isn’t hard at all to come up with better routing using buses. For example I would extend the 49 to Jackson and then turn west and go as far as possible (1st or Alaskan Way). I would skip the detour to 14th (the bus could follow Broadway/Boren/12th until Jackson). Then I would have the 60 stay on Broadway, following the same path. The buses could both run every 12 minutes or so, which would mean 6 minute headways on Broadway from Republican to Jackson (Hurray!).

      It would mean nothing but buses on Jackson. This would make adding BAT lanes much easier. That would be a huge improvement and it could happen very quickly and very little cost. It is possible the buses could run in the middle using the “weave method” shown on this map. This would cost a little more but not that much. It is just a lot cheaper when you don’t have to deal with the streetcar tracks. Speaking of which, you could probably add BAT lanes (or maybe skip ahead lanes) on Broadway as well.

      Despite the increase in service from the UW to the north end of downtown, you would actually save service money. Riders of the 49 would lose their one seat-ride to the Pike/Pine part of downtown but they would have a one-seat ride to Broadway, Jackson and the CID part of downtown. Overall I would say the routing is better (more connections) while it increases the frequency of the bus substantially. Overall it is just a lot better *and* cheaper.

      But while the streetcar has some value as transit, that isn’t the only value. It is a tourist attraction, like the Ferris Wheel. People like to take pictures of it as a way to represent Seattle (when they aren’t taking pictures of people throwing fish around the market). I don’t see it going away for that reason. Not without something to put in its place.

      One possibility is to try and resurrect the Benson waterfront streetcars. These actually made sense. They had even less value from a transit perspective but they are even more appropriate from a tourist standpoint. You could discount the fares and run it more often during tourist season. Some locals would be able to take advantage of it as well. Then they could replace the First Hill Streetcar with better bus service.

      For now I think the focus should be on the streetcar that is much more of a waste. The South Lake Union Streetcar performs poorly and would be much better off replaced with bus service. That would make the C much faster while extending the H. It would even make biking around South Lake Union better. It is pretty rare if not unheard of to have a plan that dramatically improves both transit and biking — let alone one that would actually save the city money! All it would take is the political will to say we made a mistake with the streetcars and we are better off with buses.

    7. If we eliminate the FHSC, we could use the operating funding to run a gondola from the Pioneer Square station to Harborview along Jefferson St. That would probably provide higher ridership than the FHSC. We could even start at the ferry terminal to connect the ferries with Link and Harborview. Or we could even extend it to Broadway or even Swedish Cherry Hill or Garfield HS.

  6. “the current Seattle government might look at social housing as something fit to issue long term revenue bounds for”

    That would be a better use for long-term bonds, since housing will be needed forever, and the range of potential housing designs is not as bad as ST’s ultra-long transfers. The worst thing would be an ultra-long bond for a route alignment that doesn’t really serve the passengers it’s intended to serve (e.g., Rainier-UW transfer, Eastside-airport transfer). I can’t see any likely social-housing design being that bad for residents or neighbors.

    The biggest issue in long-term apartment design is being environmentally viable in the future. E.g., if a natural disaster or energy-supply limits cause widespread or long-term electric blackouts, elevators and key fobs won’t work to get to the upper floors, and newer building designs are making the stairways pitch-black, inconvenient to use on an everyday basis, and the entrance/stairway doors difficult to open with a key. I’ve been afraid for some time that a long-term blackout would make the proliferation of 7-story apartment buildings uninhabitable, and then where would all those residents go?

    1. “The worst thing would be an ultra-long bond for a route alignment that doesn’t really serve the passengers it’s intended to serve (e.g., Rainier-UW transfer,…”

      ST3 has not be developed to maximize ridership. It was a second grade shopping spree map drawing without regard to ridership or travel time productivity or possible neighborhood concessions (CID; Alaska Junction) that was negotiated under a short deadline in 2016. Why keep paying loans for this amateurish coloring book exercise until 2101?

    2. Mike Orr,

      I remembering, 25 years ago, sitting down with a urban planner, a city council person and two builders to look at maps of downtown Tacoma and come up with a “back-of-the-cocktail napkin” plan forward. It was pretty damn depressing. Downtown Tacoma, at that time, had like 50% of all real estate either behind on property taxes or exempt from paying property taxes…. we’re talking churches, museums, government buildings, low income housing and City parks. Downtown couldn’t generate enough tax revenue to fix itself. Every City, and every neighborhood, in America lives or dies on property taxes. Anyone who supports transit should start with learning about how property taxes work.

      If a City needs a road, or a bridge or a subway it issues bonds that are largely paid back by property taxes. And for home owners, it’s really not a bad deal. It’s also good to remember that Cities are like living organisms. Anything built needs taken care of…. like being fed. Schools, roads, parks, public housing… they all need money for upkeep and skipping this how you get a Detroit. The best “fed” city in Washington… I’d guess Bellevue. Wow! their parks are just awesome!

      So Seattle is already behind “feeding” stuff like bridges and public housing. There’s a huge hole in City budget for the next few years! So taking care of City assets isn’t easy.

      Enter “social housing” …. are these buildings like low income housing? The City pays into that system because the people who live there low income. These sorts of people just don’t have the money to pay their share of the property tax or put a new roof on their building. I think they suffered enough and deserve some grace.

      Is “social housing” like low income housing? Are those social housing buildings exempt from property taxes? Who’s going to pay when they need a new roof? According to “House Our Neighbors” people making $80k could live in social housing! So are we OK with folks making 80k getting rent controlled apartments? And not paying taxes for schools or transit? And are Seattle tax payers going to put a new roof on that building when it needs it?

      Here’s the cold, hard math of it Mike. If Seattle was to exempt 10% of all the housing from property taxes, the City would go bankrupt. Even 2% would do major damage to school and transit budgets. So STB should absolutely come out against 75 year bonds and cast a very judgmental eye towards social housing.

      1. “Enter “social housing” …. are these buildings like low income housing? The City pays into that system because the people who live there low income.”

        There are two groups of people that need subsidized housing. One is those below the federal poverty level of $25K or so that are generally considered “low-income” and there are existing established processes to help them. The other is the “workforce housing” gap between $25K and $80K for those who don’t qualify for low-income housing but can’t afford market rates at 33% of their income maximum. We need to expand housing for both groups, and not just focus on solely the low-income group. Whether the “social housing” model or another models are used for the low-income group, the workforce group, or both, is less important to me.

        In cities like Vienna where the social-housing model is widespread, a third of the population is in social housing. That’s clearly more than the very low income, and people who can afford either can choose social housing or private housing. That seems like a reasonable model. A baseline of public housing for everyone who wants it, and an option of private housing if they don’t and can afford it. That doesn’t mean Seattle has to go that far. Seattle just has to do something so that everybody who can’t afford market-rate housing at a third of their income (currently $80K) has another housing option, and doesn’t have to leave the city or live in a shelter or on the street.

      2. The long-term hindsight answer is: we should have let the housing supply increase with the population level between 2003 and 2026 by loosening zoning. Then people wouldn’t have lost so much home-purchasing power and there wouldn’t be so many people cost-burdened. But we didn’t do that. That’s what created the gap between low-income ($25K) and market-rate ($80K). Now that we’ve dug ourselves into this hole, we need bigger measures to close the gap at least partially. That’s why subsidies have to go up to the $80K level, until some point in the future when they won’t be necessary, if that’s ever possible now.

      3. Housing has been “subsidized” in the past by other investments. The creation of high speed roadways opened lots of suburban development. Add to that projects to increase things like water capacity and school capacity, which are mostly funded by everyone.

        The challenge is how to subsidize housing moving forward in a more ecologically friendly way.

        I think it’s also a regional issue rather than just a Seattle city issue. The politics nay be local but the housing market isn’t.

        Here’s a hypothetical : suppose Downtown Federal Way has the density of First Hill, somehow adding 10K more residents. And it happens at Tacoma Dome too. And 8 other Link stations outside of Seattle. Then the future housing pressure eases considerably within the City. It’s still going to be there thanks to gentrification and the fact that living away from the city was a trend that has sent popular until the last century and a half.

        Building a high frequency rail line can significantly increase affordable housing supply if there’s a mandate to do that. It’s the transit version of a new or widened freeway. It’s all a matter of legislation subsidizing the growth by lifting zoning rules instead of direct payouts — now that we have offered a new transportation option that is nowhere near capacity outside of the City.

      4. Mike Orr,

        Bringing up anything in Asia or Europe as a solution isn’t realistic. America lives or dies on property taxes. That’s not possible to change. Everything around us is part of the “30 year mortgage/bond paid for/paid by property tax” equation. There is absolutely no way to break out of that now.

        I’m all for “social housing” If the crew at the “Urbanist” and “STB” want to meet up with a local credit union leader and use their combined personal credit to purchase an apartment building or better yet, build a new apartment building, by all means, please do. And the City certainly could make stuff like this much easier to do. Home ownership numbers are generally what separate “good” places and “bad” places in the US. Seattle needs to find a way to use people’s personal credit to build more housing. Because Seattle doesn’t have the kind of credit that’s needed.

        There are around 425,000 housing units in Seattle right now. Let’s just say the City went all in on “social housing” and tried add 4% more housing…. that’s something like 20,000 units… or maybe 2% more housing? something like 10,000 units? Just how much money do you believe the City could even hope to barrow to get this done? What’s the SDOT budget for 2026?

        I know people think or even believe their housing woes are the City’s problem, but Seattle can’t even help the poorest of the poor find housing. People making 80 grand have options Mike. They certainly could move, pay 50% of their wages to rent for the privilege of living in the “Emerald City” or any number of options. And the worst thing about this thinking is it makes people believe they need “help” from the City instead of a willingness to pay taxes to help the City. Making $80K and yet a “victim” of the housing market?

      5. ” Home ownership numbers are generally what separate “good” places and “bad” places in the US.”

        The homeless rate is a better measure. If you base it on the home ownership rate, New York City looks bad. That’s a far cry from reality; it shows an anti-urban bias and being unrealistic.

        “Let’s just say the City went all in on “social housing” and tried add 4% more housing…. that’s something like 20,000 units…”

        The backlog is around 150,000 units.

        The city probably can’t build more than 10,000-20,000 units per year due to construction labor limitations, so it will take several years minimum to dig out of the hole. But leaders need to at least identify the complete problem and at least look at ways to solve all of it, and show a commitment to incremental steps, rather than just leaving it unaddressed.

        It’s the same issue with comprehensive transit. We need to get to a European level of transit: full-time frequent buses, a stronger commitment to RapidRide/Swift/Stride/gondola-like services, a smarter approach to rail resources. The existing plans fall far short of it. Politicians need to identify the entire problem and outline a plan to get there, no matter how long the plan takes, as long as it’s showing robust incremental steps (implementation, attempts to find funding).

        “housing. People making 80 grand have options Mike.”

        Your suggestions have revolved around moving to areas that are unwalkable, car-dependent, and have less or insufficient job opportunities. We need something better than that.

        > And the worst thing about this thinking is it makes people believe they need “help” from the City instead of a willingness to pay taxes to help the City. Making $80K and yet a “victim” of the housing market?

        The reason people need subsidized housing is the housing market is so distorted out of whack, which is largely due to government policies. It’s not fair to blame people for macroeconomic issues and government policies they have no control over.

      6. @tacomee

        Property taxes exemptions don’t work like that. Property taxes in Washington are levy-based, not rate-based, so exempting 10% of property means the property taxes of everyone else goes up 10%.

      7. The levy-based property tax rate is why WA cities are so well-positioned to offer MFTE for income-restricted housing, it doesn’t hurt municipal finances.

      8. Social housing is the least of any city in Washington’s worries from a budget perspective. The 1% levy cap is a much bigger issue for all jurisdictions than tax exemptions, since tax exemptions just shift the burden around thanks to Washington’s levy based system. An immediate 10% loss would cause issues because of the $10 per $1,000 rate limit, but social housing wouldn’t really behave like that since it takes time to build and would potentially be built on already tax exempt land.

        75 year bonds are a bad choice from a fiscal management perspective. Social housing is not. If anything, our regressive tax structure combined with property tax limitations mean that building low cost tax exempt housing could have a positive impact on local governments bottom lines thanks to an increase in sales taxes revenue.

      9. jd,

        There’s not enough time and space to do a deep dive into the way property taxes work from State to State, but believe me that there’s not much difference in the long run. Some States have do a “budget based” formula and some States have caps about how much taxes can go up in a given year. This does even out tax revenues over time. This makes it easier to budget and run a city year to year. But over a decade, everything comes down to simple percentages of the assessed value of the property. The actual “real life” property tax bill in Seattle is around 1% of the assessed value, or that’s what property management companies figure on a smaller unit building and set aside.

        So let’s say we all pay that 1% of the assessed value of our housing to fund the City. It’s not a terrible deal if you’re a home owner…. because, yes, your assessment is going up, and taxes along with that, the value of your home is also increasing. It’s a terrible deal if you’re a renter because only the taxes (and your rent) keep going up. You are not building any wealth, but you are paying taxes.

        And here’s where the rubber meets the road. Seattle needs everybody to pay taxes. Sure, there are some folks on low fixed incomes and with low paying jobs who make less than $30,000 a year who should live in low income housing and not pay property taxes, but everybody else needs to.

        You might think I’m being an asshole about this, but where does the money for transit come from? The money to run public education? The roads, the bridges, public parks? I’ve think that people should pay for all this stuff if they use it. Letting people use all the great things about a city and skip paying taxes? Making 80 grand a year? Do these people want to really be part of their community? Do you want good progressive ideas to actually happen? Then pay your goddamn taxes and be happy about it.

      10. tacomee,

        The variation between property tax systems by state is much more significant than you are describing. Not all states have hard limits, though many do (which is deeply unfortunate). The 1% levy increase limit at the 1% limit on total rate are both heavily constraining aspects of our property tax system in Washington. Oregon has a 3% assessed value cap and an 1.5% limit. Over time, those are big differences. And it’s misguided to say that renters get screwed by property taxes when there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

        For the issue at hand (social housing) the details do matter. It matters that social housing will not impact property tax receipts in the short or medium term if your main point is that we need to adequately fund local government programs. It is patently false to claim social housing would risk financial insolvency for any local government in the state of Washington.

        If your point is just vaguely that everyone “should” pay property taxes, then yeah social housing impacts that. But I’m not sure that’s a very interesting point. We need a healthy tax base, but we also need permanently affordable housing. In some way, those are at odds, but only sort of. People living in social housing would contribute to government revenues in other ways (via other taxes). This is more like “something to keep an eye on as the program proceeds”, not a “we can’t or shouldn’t do this”.

      11. blumdrew,

        Thank goodness Washington has a cap on property taxes! Otherwise lots of middle income people would have been forced to sell as the price of housing skyrocketed in Seattle.

        But I stand by my belief that “social housing” isn’t a progressive idea whatsoever in the USA. I might change my mind if the City had a more robust public housing program. The folks in public housing cannot take care of themselves for one reason or another. They are the least among us and deserve what little government housing there is.

        Here’s why social housing isn’t progressive. It takes money from the many (taxes) and funnels it to the few ( friends of Tiffani McCoy?) who get these “golden ticket” rent controlled apartments for life. Seattle Social Housing Developer hasn’t done a thing except for infighting over power (and I bet money) behind the scenes. https://www.theurbanist.org/2026/01/16/seattle-social-housing-board-fires-ceo-taps-mccoy-as-interim-leader/

        Public transit is just that…. transit for the public. Anybody can ride it and it’s worth investing in. American social housing isn’t even on the same planet as far as the public good is concerned. And anybody who really believes that transit and social housing are going to battle for the same tax dollars doesn’t understand local government.

      12. tacomee,

        You are deeply wrong about property tax caps being good for the middle class. Lower taxes on land and property increase land values, which increases the upfront capital investment required to buy. Higher property tax rates shift the payment burden into the future, which allows buyers to leverage higher future earning power to buy in the here and now. It’s not an accident that states with hard property tax limits (WA, CA, OR) also have very high property prices, and states with high property taxes (TX, MI, WI) tend to have lower home prices. Low property taxes are a proximate cause in home value inflation. More specific policy to address displacement (circuit breakers and exemptions for retirees) is far better than blanket caps.

        That’s also just not what “progressive” means when it comes to tax policy. A more progressive tax is one that is paid in accordance to someone’s ability to pay. Sales taxes are regressive because lower income people spend a higher portion of their income on taxable purchases. A progressive income tax is one that has different categories according to income. Providing a service for the few at the expense of the many isnt necessarily progressive or not. Social housing could be set up in a progressive or regressive way. A progressive social housing program would charge some portion of a tenants income as rent, while a (slightly) regressive one would charge a flat rate to all.

        In terms of “progressive” as a general term for a set of redistributive political policies, again the question is in implementation. I would strongly prefer a social housing program that allows all to enter, charges a portion of income as rent, and is abundant enough to meaningfully impact the private rent market. I am of the opinion that this would stabilize the rental market and insulate tenants from rapidly rising rents as they would have the option of renting a socially provided unit. A paternalistic social housing program similar to US public housing policy in the post war period with income limits and the like might be appealing in some ways, but I think this kind of welfare state is ineffective. If we provide social housing, it should be available to all who want it – just like transit.

      13. blumdrew,

        My last thought on social housing is, “Let’s start it as soon as Greater Seattle is 100% served by light rail”. As far as funding, light rail would be an easy lift compared to real, honest-to-goodness social housing. Right now Seattle has collected enough money to build maybe 200 units of housing. The taxes coming, give or take 50 million, might build 100 units a year. Most low income housing costs about 500K per unit and the Seattle Social Housing Developer is going to have an higher overhead.

        I’m interested in how much profit you believe a property owner actually makes a newer one bed room apartment in a nicer part of the City? Let’s set the rent at the standard $2000 per month.

      14. tacomee,

        The issue of renter protections is more relevant in older places and at the lower end of the market. I have no doubt that the profit margins on new builds are relatively narrow. But that’s all essentially besides the point. The point is that property tax revenues are not a reason to be against social housing, and that property tax policy in Washington is sort of bad already.

    3. Another issue with housing is that demand increase from the past is not sonething that’s reasonable to project in the future.

      Household sizes shrunk in the past 50 years (creating more housing demand even with flat population change). That trend is over.

      The US population also grew by 50 percent from 1980 to today. It’s supposed to top out demographically by under another 10 percent within 40 years. While our region may get more as a climate refuge or economic powerhouse, those recent population growth booms we’ve had look unsustainable after about another decade. So outside of massive immigration (not politically likely as our eroding freedoms and mass affordability discourages immigration), the pressure for more housing is going to ease by 2040.

      1. The huge rapid increase in 2012-2018 is unlikely again. There’s no Amazon-sized headquarters on the horizon, and the city hasn’t zoned any place to put it (it missed the Northgate opportunity). So growth will continue at a slower 2000s level or post-2022 level.

        At some point growth in Pugetopolis will stop or reverse, but that’s too far into the future to anticipate now. It’s decades away, and we don’t know what the total economic/environmental/governmental situation will be then, and without that information our plans would be wrong. Growth had short-term pauses or reversals after the 2008 crash and 2020 pandemic, but those only lasted 2-3 years, so we mustn’t do long-term planning as if those kinds of plateaus are permanent.

      2. Mike Orr,

        “At some point growth in Pugetopolis will stop or reverse, but that’s too far into the future to anticipate now. It’s decades away, and we don’t know what the total economic/environmental/governmental situation will be then, and without that information our plans would be wrong. Growth had short-term pauses or reversals after the 2008 crash and 2020 pandemic, but those only lasted 2-3 years, so we mustn’t do long-term planning as if those kinds of plateaus are permanent.”

        ===========================================================
        You’re completely right! And this is why 75 year bonds are not the solution for Sound Transit. And long term bonds are not a solution for “social housing”

      3. @Mike Orr

        We still at pace with the expansion of the 2010s (~2%), there hasn’t really been a post-pandemic slowdown. There was a brief blip in 2021 (0.7%) but there was a bounceback in 2022 (2.7%) and we’ve been seeing >2% growth every year since then

      4. “And this is why 75 year bonds are not the solution for Sound Transit.”

        What does the population growth rate have to do with whether to allow 75-year bonds or not?

    4. This seems rather hyperbolic to me. Walking up stairs with a flashlight is inconvenient, not uninhabitable.

      1. How do you charge the flashlight without electricity? You just keep buying disposable batteries?

      2. Hand-crank rechargeable flashlights have been common in emergency kits for a long time. There are also small solar panels that can power small devices and chargers.

    5. Battery backup systems really aren’t that expensive. If an apartment building owner is faced with rolling blackouts, it would be well worth it to install such a thing for the building.

  7. Does anyone know where I could find ST’s ridership and travel time projections for DSTT2 + Ballard Link?

    1. Those stats are in the 2022 WSBLE DEIS: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/14a-wsble-drafteis-appendixn1-transportationtechreport-202201.pdf

      However, the DEIS doesn’t include the North/South CID alternative change, so you have to find those memos and update the ridership and travel time estimates manually: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2024/Presentation%20-%20BLE%20CID%20Additional%20Studies%2011-14-24.pdf

      For fun, you can find pre-DEIS ridership estimates presented here: https://seattletransitblog.com/2020/01/27/sound-transits-station-ridership-in-2040/

      There are also pre-ST3-passage ridership & travel time estimates here: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/background/Ridership%20forecasting%2006-06-2016.pdf (linked in this STB article: https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/08/08/new-riders-in-st3/)

      Updated ridership and travel time data will be presented in the complete DEIS for BLE. Unfortunately, it’s apparently being delayed by FTA review. It was originally due mid-2025 but is now expected in Q1 2026.

      1. Thanks for passing these along. Do you happen to know if ST ever published transfer times at SODO and the DSTT2 stations?

      2. I think some of the Further Studies memos had details for the reworked station alternatives. You’ll have to do a bit of legwork digging up those memos.

        SODO is part of WSLE.

      3. Ah, found something. The Further Study memos don’t have hard figures, but the presentations do. See slide 15 of this report on further study: https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/BLE-CID-maximizing-connections-additional-resource-packet.pdf
        There are bar charts with station access and transfer times. ST estimates it would take about 5 minutes to transfer at either Westlake or Midtown and 1.5 minutes at SODO.

        Thanks for the pointers!

      4. Thanks for finding the presentation.

        You gotta notice how it doesn’t discuss transferring from UW and points north to SeaTac.

        I’m also wondering how a 5th Ave shallow transfer would take that long.

        I notice that the transfer time ignores backups waiting for escalators. Heck it may not even have down escalators at these stations! It’s not rare to wait for up to a minute ir more if a trainload of people get off and want to transfer all at once.

        Finally, it’s so obvious to me that SODO is the optimum transfer point with these data, and that the station layout could be different and reduce the transfer time to just a few seconds. It just needs the platforms reworked as cross platform transfers! But ST never will even study it despite years of taking public feedback about this from me and others.

      5. I assume this is only walk time and implies an abled bodied person. It does not include the wait time nor the extra delay an elderly person for example would have to deal with. Even SODO station could be faster with a shallow tunnel under the tracks.
        The frustrating part is that ST has not even considered running both 1 Line and WSLE on the same track with a center platform which would eliminate any delays for transfers as there would be no need to change platforms.

      6. > You gotta notice how it doesn’t discuss transferring from UW and points north to SeaTac.
        One would probably transfer at SODO, forcing an 90s escalator ride (assuming there’s no crowding) and another 4-ish minutes of waiting for a train to come. As usual, it makes for a worse rider experience than today’s one-seat ride from UW to the Airport.

        The transfer from Eastside to reach the Airport is gnarlier: you have to ride all the way up to the Pioneer Square/Midtown station, transfer, and then head south. Riding the train for that extra distance would take about 4 minutes. Add a 5-ish minute transfer to Midtown and another 4-ish minutes waiting for a train, you’re looking at around a 13 minute delay assuming the escalators aren’t broken or overcrowded. Not to mention the transfer forces you to haul luggage through a station complex.

      7. Sitting on slow moving escalators for 5 minutes at New Westlake for 9 floors worth of vertical movement is going to be extremely frustrating for people that formerly were able to simply ride straight through.

  8. CID North and South refer to the Midtown and Dearborn St. stations in the preferred alternative, right?

    Also, were the estimated transfer times at the various DSTT2 stations ever published anywhere?

    When ST finally publishes the BLE DEIS, will there be an opportunity for them to study a stub/automated line?

    Apologies for the litany of questions.

    1. The West Seattle FEIS was schizophrenic. It showed ridership after DSTT2 and Ballard Link opening but did not disclose anything like transfer times downtown as the preferred build option was a West Seattle stub line. They just assume DSTT2 was a “background project”.

      There are presentations/ briefings where the info may be provided. Good luck scanning for that!

    2. ST can only build what’s disclosed in an EIS alternative. It can mix and match pieces from several alternatives but all the pieces must be there. Automation isn’t there, so it would have to be added in a supplemental EIS. That would take several months to research and write. ST wants to make a decision and start building as soon as possible, so it probably won’t add it. ST has an opportunity to add it right now or after the EIS is final — anytime until it selects a project for construction, signs the contracts, and construction starts. After that it would have to pay penalties if it cancels or modifes the contracts. It’s all the board’s choice.

    1. I just checked the ST schedules off the main home age. The current online timetables go no further than March 27. So that’s consistent with this item that you found.

      1. It actually doesn’t go further than March 27 because March 28 is a service change date, but you might be right. Also I can see they haven’t announced what they’re gonna do that day or have an announcement on their page, I would expect that to happen later.

    2. If that page is up to date. That date may have been before ST postponed it to tentatively May. What we do know is simulated service will start next month. We also know ST has to set the opening date 6-8 weeks in advance to give time for logistics, coordinating with the cities on opening-day activities, and hiring and training drivers. So for a March 28th opening date, it would presumably have to decide in early February and announce it mid February. That’s right when simulated service is expected to start, so it wouldn’t give much time to see how simulated service goes before making a decision. ST might do that, but I wouldn’t just assume it. Hopefully our authors can get some more definite information from ST about when service will start, or when it will make a decision.

    3. Thanks for pointing this out. We checked with ST and they said: “Content was being prepared for a whole range of potential dates and that one pushed through. It should’ve been still in development mode. Nothing to announce on simulated service or the opening date just yet.”

      1. I rechecked the page and it now says “early 2026”. It seems like they accidentally leaked the opening date, whoopsies ST! Guess we’ll have to wait.

      4. I’m hoping the date is March 28th. I hope the removal of the date from their website was just because they accidentally leaked it and not because they had to delay it. I really hope it’s March 28, but maybe earlier if Dow and company are lucky.

    4. It will be nice for me if it is March 28. Only a couple more times of going to Bellevue on the 550, and no more need to minimize traveling on Sundays.

      1. It probably is, Mike. I can’t believe they literally exposed it and then found out they did and removed it. I’ll also use the 2 Line more than the 535 since I live up in Lynnwood and I usually use the 1 Line and 271 when the 535 isn’t around.

    1. I noticed that recently as well and have reached out to Sound Transit to see what’s going on.

      2. From ST: “We are working with IT to get the System Performance Tracker back up and running as soon as possible – the connection should be restored by end of next week.”

    2. I believe it’s because they need to add Federsl Way Link stations into the database. It’s not merely updating monthly numbers.

      1. They may be rebuilding it more extensively to report full 2 Line data when it soon opens. Up until opening day, each Link line has had distinct stations. With the opening, two lines will share 13-14 stations (Pinehurst is #14). This station line sharing may be beginning as soon as soon as a few weeks from now.

      2. It is not just Link data. ST Express, Sounder and T Line (Tacoma) are also not working.

      3. I feel like the T Line should be operated by Pierce Transit and not ST. I also feel like the T Line and Pierce Transit should raise their fares up a dollar to streamline them with King County Metro’s as we shouldn’t forget that Pierce Transit has lacked money in the past years because of that recession stuff. This could probably happen once the 560 is deleted and the Pierce operators move.

  11. Does anyone know if there’s any possibility of a future light rail stop in Fremont/Wallingford (maybe around Stone Way)? Could it be possible in “ST4”?

    1. Sound Transit studied a Ballard-UDistrict-Redmond light rail corridor in the mid 2010s (two projects combined for the study). We had articles on it at the time, although others are better at finding them than I am. Mayor McGinn prioritized Ballard-downtown before Ballard-UW, so that’s what got into ST3.

      ST updated its long-range plan in 2014, and as you see on page 14, Ballard-UDistrict is still there, while UDistrict-Redmond was dropped.

      This study, along with a handful of other corridor studies in ST2 and ST3, puts them presumed first in line for ST4. But no commitment has been made when or if to build it, and another project could still swoop in ahead of it. Given ST3’s budget gap in North King, ST4 might backfill ST3 projects rather than adding new projects. It’s also less likely ST4 would pass, because transit fans have become divided on ST3’s implementation, the subareas’ interests will likely diverge (with some subareas wanting a lot and others little, while the tax rate must be the same across all subareas), and any projects before ST3 is finished requiring more taxes on top of the existing ones (which some think are already high) and the legislature’s permission for higher taxes (which may be unlikely).

      From memory, an underground Ballard-UW line would have a travel time less than 15 minutes while zigzagging to both Fremont and Wallingford. Stations might be around 34th & Fremont, 46th & Aurora, 45th & Wallingford, 45th & Latona, and U-District station. It would have higher ridership and cost less than Ballard-downtown, and would be time-competitive with a trip from Ballard to downtown transferring at U-District (because Ballard-downtown is the long side of the triangle). But the ridership estimate was from before Ballard-downtown was rerouted to SLU instead of Belltown in 2016, so that might add more riders (although RossB disputes that since Belltown is also dense).

      The study also had other alignment alternatives like Northlake Way/UW station instead of 45th/UDistrict station, but those are unlikely at this point.

      1. You simply cannot do both 34th (or 35th) and Fremont and 46th and Aurora. As Ross and several others of us have said, the Fremont Station should be by The Troll with some sort of high-quality access to and from an E Line Station. The other stations you mention would all be great, and 46th and Aurora would certainly be possible if Fremont were skipped, but most thinking people want to serve the large employment and entertainment cluster in Fremont.

      2. P.S. Another way to do Fremont is with two stations, one at Fremont and one there at 40th and Stone Way. However, that kills any transfer interchange with the E Line. In a world of unlimited funds, there could be a station at 40th and Stone, a Troll station AND one a bit west of Fremont. But that might be a little too dense a station separation.

      3. Yeah, there are really only two things you want in Fremont:

        1) Connect to the Aurora bus(es).
        2) Serve the main part of Fremont.

        This presents a challenge. Fremont Avenue is very close to Aurora. Ballard is also north of Fremont. This means that if you served Fremont Avenue first (close to the water) and then went north to serve Aurora you are making a very sharp turn. Then you are going due north before heading east again. To be clear, anything is possible it is just that it would be really expensive. For example you could have a station at about 35th & Evanston. Then go under Aurora and and head due north on Winslow. Add a station at say, 40th & Winslow. Aurora itself would be different as you would have a pedestrian crossing there (at 40th) along with bus stops there. Riders would walk a block to transfer. The train would then continue north and then curve to serve the next stop, Wallingford. I could see this working but it would mean two stations instead of one.

        In contrast if you add a station at the troll it basically serves both Fremont and the buses. It is a compromise that would likely save a huge amount of money. You still serve Fremont, just a little bit higher than ideal. You still connect to the buses with a relatively short walk (this plus a bit more). It would require a bus stop there but folks have been asking for that for more than a decade. I think that is the best option.

      4. I could envision a RapidRide E stop on Aurora at the north part the bridge above 34th (J P Patches Way). It would not be cheap and it how it ties into the Aurora bridge may be fatally flawed. But if it were to happen, a multi-elevator tower up to the stop from Fremont could be added to get riders up to the RR-E stop. And it could be done decades before any light rail could reach central Fremont.

      5. I could envision a RapidRide E stop on Aurora at the north part the bridge above 34th (J P Patches Way).

        Good imagination Al! I suppose anything is possible if you are willing to spend the money. It would be expensive to retrofit a bus stop and an elevator on the bridge but a subway stop is expensive as well. There are a couple things I would note:

        1) There is no value in going that far south. The only street south of 34th is Northlake Way and the two streets are practically adjacent. South of Northlake Way there is very little. You are better off being centered at 35th. If it wasn’t for the Aurora buses the ideal stop would probably be 35th & Fremont Avenue.

        2) Putting a station under 35th (or 34th) seems no easier than a station under 36th.

        3) It is quite possible (and ideal) for Aurora to have center-running buses. It would be very difficult to add bus stops and an elevator if that happened.

        4) If we wanted to spend that kind of money to rebuild Aurora then doing so at 36th would be much, much cheaper than at 35th. As you can see by the pictures, the bridge is not very high above 36th but it is really high above 35th.

        One of the advantages of a station at 36th (next to the troll) is that it requires so little work on Aurora and the surrounding area. There are already stairs on both sides of the bridge from 36th up to where the bus stop would be as well as what I assume to be an ADA compliant pathway. You just need to add the bus stop and stop lights. But the stop does not have to be close to the ramps. It could be close to the staircases. You would want to redo the walkway (to make it wider) as well as the pathway (to connect better to the bus stop). But ultimately it would mean a pretty short walk between the bus stop and station — better than most in our system (at very little additional cost). Riders would spend more time getting from the platform to the surface.

        Speaking of which, I could see the station at 36th being fairly close to the surface. I think the assumption is that the train would be underground between 8th NW and Fremont with nothing in between. It could basically follow the contours of the hill (well below it at all times) until it got to 36th where it would be closer to the surface. 36th is a minor street. It could be shut down for years if need be (while they build the station).

        If they wanted to make this station better than most then I would work on the connection to the neighborhood. The troll isn’t that hard to get to but it involves a hill. It is possible the train would be at roughly the same altitude as Fremont & 36th. That means you could build a pedestrian tunnel from the platform to a spot on the street just east of that intersection. Maybe it goes down a little bit but not that much.

        Of course it isn’t ideal but very little about our system is ideal. The U-District is one of the best stations in our system but there are no entrances to the north. This means riders have to walk a ways to transfer. It also means anyone in the neighborhood has to cross the street and do the same sort of thing. Meanwhile, the station itself is deep underground. Yet it is still one of the best stations in our system. The transfers really aren’t that bad (nowhere near as bad as Mount Baker). It serves the neighborhood really well. A station at the troll would be similar.

      6. Why doesn’t the E have a stop just south of 38th right now? It looks like there’s already a route up to Aurora there, it’s just missing a stop. There’s also an overpass at 41st that could probably support a bus stop

      7. I lived at 38th and Fremont for almost a decade, and would often climb the (steep) hill up 38th to catch the 5. It’s a bit of a pedestrian nightmare up there. They’ve improved it a bit for cars, but all the infrastructure around there is basically to shape it into as efficient a system of highway on-ramps and off-ramps as possible. Even so, cars are often backed up all the way on to Fremont Ave, or they were.

        It would take a careful, thoughtful and expensive redesign to make it safe for pedestrians to access the E near 38th. It could, and probably should happen, but I it would almost certainly make the car situation worse. And so… whining.

      8. @jd — They just never prioritized it. You can see some of the issues (based on the link I referenced earlier).

        @Cam — Same idea. But that is just for the basics (a stop there). Eventually it could (and probably will) go a lot farther. If you look at the plans for Aurora as well as the long term trends, it isn’t hard to imagine the street becoming a lot more like other major arterials, like 15th NW. Check out the 51st & 15th intersection from a couple years ago. Now look at it. It was damn near impossible to cross before — now it is trivial. But it is more than that. If you drive south from that intersection there are no traffic lights for a very long stretch. You go across the Ballard Bridge, under Emerson and under Dravus, which means the first light you encounter is at Armour, more than a mile down the road. It is basically an expressway, very similar to Aurora. It was quite common for people to go 40 mph or even faster through that stretch — which is more than a mile. This means that northbound cars would be used to going really fast and not worrying about stopping until they come close to Market. It is also slightly uphill so if traffic was light they might fly by that intersection at 40 and then put on the breaks. The idea of adding a crosswalk at 51st — several blocks before Market — seems crazy. But they did it and people adjusted their driving. The neighborhood is much better as a result.

        The same thing could easily happen at Aurora and probably will, eventually. The easiest thing to do is the type of thing Bruce Nourish suggested years ago. Much of this has already happened. Northbound you could put a stop here, just a bit north of the crosswalk. It is Bus-Only there so you don’t have to worry about cars. The walk from the bus stop to Fremont is a bit of a pain if you are coming from the west but it is a lot better than today. Southbound you could do something similar. You basically take advantage of the existing crosswalks across Fremont and Bridge Way. But eventually you want to do as I suggested earlier. Allow people to routinely cross Aurora south of Green Lake (just as they do north of there). The crosswalk would be next to the entrances to the stairs (just a bit north of 36th). This would shorten the walk considerably. This is essential if you have center-running buses. Not just there but at various places (46th, 50th, Aloha, etc.). It seems radical but it really isn’t that different than what has already happened on 15th NW — it is just to a different scale. You press a button, wait for the light and cross the street.

    2. A synopsis of pre—ST3 rail studies was put into slides by WSDOT here:

      https://wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/background/ERP%20150505%20HCT%20Corridor%20Studies.pdf

      The costs look way off. The actual cost would be 3 or 4 times (300-400%) higher.

      The slides don’t mention the other pre-ST3 study done by the City. It’s here:

      https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/Reports/B2D_FinalReport%2005-16-14.pdf

      Note that these were concept studies. There are no funding sources identified to build any of these things. The intent was to provide enough to get something described in the ST3 referendum.

      Also note that the light rail path chosen for ST3 was a path drawn up by senior level staff quickly for the referendum. It wasn’t in the original studies described in the reports linked above.

      It’s possible — but there’s such a huge cash shortage that Mike described that a line can’t even afford to get built to Seattle Center unless West Seattle Link is cut back or eliminated.

      The Board has not shown any interest in seriously pursuing ST4 at this point. The idea to create new funding would need to go in front of the legislature before getting authorized for a vote. With ST asking for 75 year bonds, you may die from old age health complications before anything could get approved, funded, built and finally opened.

  12. The ST3 corridor studies are here on page 7. These will be studied in ST3 for potential future projects in ST4+. “HCT” means high-capacity transit of undetermined mode (may be Link, Stride, or Sounder).

    “High-capacity transit (HCT) studies in the Sound Transit 3 Plan include
    connecting West Seattle to Burien and on to Renton via Tukwila;
    light rail connections across northern Lake Washington between SR 522 and SR 520,
    including connections between Ballard to the University of Washington and to the Eastside;
    commuter rail to Orting;
    HCT extension from Tacoma Dome to Tacoma Mall
    and connections from Everett to North Everett.
    The Sound Transit 3 Plan also includes an environmental study examining multiple options to determine the mode and alignment for a HCT route from Bothell to Bellevue,
    including along the Eastside Rail Corridor and/or I-405,
    and planning for a future system expansion to continue implementing Sound Transit’s Long-Range Plan.”

    West Seattle-Burien-Renton has already been studied, so I don’t know why they’d be studied again, maybe to get better options. The last study of both light rail and BRT options said it would be high cost and low ridership.

    In 2016 ST subarea boardmembers identified the short extensions of Everett Station-Everett College and Tacoma Dome-Tacoma Mall as the final termini of of the Spine. (Bypassing downtown Tacoma!)

    The odd Eastside wording suggests the Ballard-UDistrict-Bothell-Kirkland concept mused on in the 2010s. This would presumably serve Lake City.

  13. As many have said, seventy-five years bonds are an enormous waste of money. The ST Service Area has roughly half the population of the State of Washington so it can pretty much call the shots. Simply modify the enabling legislation to allow a higher percentage of assessed valuation to be taxed by Sound Transit, and allow sub-areas to vote for assessments for their own areas at the higher rate. North King would absolutely vote for it.

    This does not require a Masters of Finance.

    1. Subarea-specific tax rates and votes would require splitting the one ST tax district into subarea districts. It could be done, but we’d have to see if it would require splitting the board too, or the agency, or if only subarea boardmembers could vote on subarea tax/project issues. How disruptive would this be, and how would it impact ST’s ability to build, maintain, and operate?

      1. OK, then, if different sub-area taxes are impossible, ask the Legislature to give Seattle a large TBD with high taxing authority and order SoundTransit do what it asks to spend the money. It is ridiculous that the enormous economic power of the City cannot be leveraged to build the urban subways it needs. Subarea equity was designed to prevent Seattle from raiding other cities’ funds, but it should not be used to deny Seattle the system it needs IF it’s willing to pay for it itself.

        Of course, it’s possible that the citizens of the City will not agree to tax themselves more if given the chance, I personally expect that they would, but a possible “No” can’t be ruled out; it might happen. But so what? If the City is given the means by which to raise its own taxes and the people decline, what damage has been done to anyone?

    2. There is another funding referendum option: Fund the project as a City of Seattle fund instead of a special district fund. The City can then have a review board and better direct influence on the project details. If ST wants to build something, they would have to justify the ask.

      The City could add funding in other aporiaches too. The City could ask for a levy to add elements to reduce project cost. The City could ask voter to fund for things like to bore a new tunnel or build a new, multi-modal Ballard bridge or fill in a deferred station. The funds don’t always have to be levied and controlled by ST if it involves Link.

      Generally, I prefer the idea of local levies for transit assessed by entities that don’t develop the projects. It provides some financial accountability and oversight in the system. Of course, that approach could backfire as a better likelihood of value as demonstrated with the streetcars.

      Having multiple new or continuing levies proposed by ST, Metro and the City separately is also seen as duplicative and uncoordinated by the voting public. The public can get transit referendum fatigue.

      1. Note that back in 2018 as WSLE was taking shape, the official strategy was in fact to get additional funding from outside of ST3 to put Link underground within West Seattle. The shift to not doing that was a more recent political decision anyway. And I suspect it was made because there was skepticism that Seattle voters would actually fund the bored tunnel segment into Alaska Junction.

  15. All these recent planned disruptions just to incorporate the 2 Line operations appears to me to be due to some horrifically bad project management on the part of ST these past few years. ST first knew that the lines would merge with the 2008 ST2 approval. Here we are 18 years later and just weeks before simulation begins, along with living through many multiple planned tunnel disruptions already in the past year to tie in the 2 Line living with another weekend disruption. Can’t anyone actually plan ahead over at ST?

    At the very least, ST needs to come clean and admit that they’ve done a lousy job at planning this. That’s more than merely apologizing for the multiple weekend closures.

  17. Zahilay just removed Balducci from the Sound Transit System Expansion Committee. I have a bad feeling about this.

  18. On top topic of improving bus speeds, another pet peeve of mine is intersections where the bus has to stop at a two-way stop sign and wait, as long as it takes, for an opening in the traffic to materialize. There aren’t too many such places, but as a general rule, anytime a bus route has a stop sign, it should be an all-way stop.

    Here’s one example that the 255 has to deal with coming out of South Kirkland P&R: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6436738,-122.1977414,3a,75y,209.84h,83.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2WmDE97i2cX-ukGDJuBgpA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.8399333813474215%26panoid%3D2WmDE97i2cX-ukGDJuBgpA%26yaw%3D209.84047066444384!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDEyMC4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA3MUgBUAM%3D

    Most of the time, traffic is light enough that it isn’t a problem, but it can be a problem during afternoon rush hour. There is no good reason for buses to get randomly delayed by a few cars, just so drivers traveling down 38th don’t need to stop.

    An all-way stop would also be better for pedestrian safety.

    1. Yeah, I agree. That shouldn’t happen. Of course it would be much easier if the bus just kept going (and didn’t detour to the park and ride). They could add a bus stop closer to the parking lot.

Comments are closed.