Two teenagers were shot and killed at bus stop on Rainier Ave near South Shore PreK-8 on Friday (KUOW). Both were students at Rainier Beach High School. Students and community members including Mayor Wilson and new SPS Superintendent Ben Shuldiner gathered at the now-closed bus stop on Monday afternoon (The Seattle Times, $).

On February 7 (Saturday), 1 Line service will be suspended between Federal Way and Angle Lake. During the closure, crews will conduct inspections and make adjustments to the traction power system to improve system reliability. Buses will replace 1 Line trains between Angle Lake and Federal Way, operating every 10-15 minutes. In addition, passengers can use the A Line between Federal Way and Tukwila International Blvd station.

Transportation

Land Use & Housing:

Reminder: This is an Open Thread, but comments should focus on topics clearly related to transit and land use issues and be mindful of our Comment Policy.

159 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: A Better Billion”

  1. Yesterday I attended the 2026 Service Plan webinar, were any of you other guys there? I heard that the main reason they were having the changes take effect all the way to fall 2026 and not earlier is because of the 2026 FIFA World Cup. I did ask if they could have simply suspended the 515 in March, but they said that they will keep it due to the world cup.

    1. I don’t understand this logic – the world cup will be a time when many people take transit here for the first time (visitors generally but also some locals). Wouldn’t it be better to do the restructure sooner so that transit is better when the world cup starts?

      Also I get we are excited for the world cup but some local authorities are acting like it’s the equivalent to hosting the Olympics. It’s just hosting 6 matches, only 2 of which are knockout stage.

      2. Were you even at the webinar yesterday? I was there.

        So what? What does that have to do with Ian’s point.

      3. No I wasn’t but this bizzarre logic of not making service changes until after FIFA was mentioned before which still doesn’t make sense to me.
        People will try transit around FIFA then they will restructure afterward which will be alientaing to people

      4. It’s about not eliminating service before the World Cup in case it’s needed for capacity or fallback. If Link breaks, the backup routes will already be in place and well-known to local riders, who can tell visitors where to get them and how often they run. With a last-minute ad hoc solution, few people will know those.

      5. Why is STExpress 586 sticking around until the Fall? It serves neither Seattle Stadium nor the airport.

      6. It serves Seattle, and besides UW to Downtown are pretty close to each other.

    2. Yeah, right. I’m going to clean out the basement but I will have to wait until after the World Cup. I’m sorry, but the idea that we should keep the 515 (a redundant commuter route) because of the World Cup is just ridiculous. We will be running twice as many trains to Lynnwood than we do now. There will be more tourists in town but they probably won’t all be staying in Lynnwood and going back and forth to Seattle. The first three games start at noon. The fourth game is at 8:00 pm. There are only two more games (with times unannounced) but it is highly likely that they will match the (fairly limited) schedule of the 515.

      ST is just getting very slow when it comes to restructuring the buses. They did nothing for the East Link starter line (they didn’t even bother to truncate the 566). The reason they aren’t getting rid of the 515 is because they don’t feel like it.

    3. I attended the first one. Yes, the cautious approach is illogical. At leastST is spending funds on bus service.

      1. Given their record of maintenance shutdowns, their cautious approach is fully logical. Clearly, the 550 and 515 will be mostly empty when the trains are running… but evidently Sound Transit has realized that there’re going to continue to be many days when the trains aren’t running.

    4. I hope the primary plan is to have as many trains as possible in service before and after matches. That will do a lot more for capacity than the buses.

      That includes Sounder.

  2. The bus stop where the 2 teens were shot was supposed to have protected bike lanes installed in 2025. I’m not trying to imply that bike lanes would have stopped that terrible event from taking place, but rather I think it’s an example of the city slow rolling investments into the neighborhood. The bike lanes are billed as a safe routes to school project but they seem to not be in a hurry to improve the safety of kids going to school. https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/projects/s-henderson-st-school-safety-project

    2. Will PBL slow transit flow? In most cases, lanes have taken for PBL and transit left behind in congestion.

    3. Street geometry changes cannot reasonably prevent deaths by violence like this situation. It makes no sense to me to imply any
      blame that these deaths happened somehow because of SDOT inaction.

      The deaths are sad and troublesome — but they are rationally unrelated to a PBL project even though it happened on a street waiting for PBL installation.

      1. Al, I suggest reading past the first sentence of the comment. Specifically, the second sentence.

      2. Nathan, the third sentence allegation about SDOT generally neglecting “safety” to me implies a linkage to the first sentence mention of the shooting incident. Otherwise, why mention the shooting at all?

      1. Several operators I’ve talked to have all said February 14th is the date they’ve been told sim service will start.

      2. ST staff are indirectly hearing Feb 14 through Reddit posts and driver-assignment scheduling, but we haven’t seen definitive confirmation or an announcement. If it is February 14th, that’s just 1 1/2 weeks away, and Valentine’s Day.

        For me it will be helpful going to north Seattle. But for going to Bellevue, the missing Westlake-South Bellevue segment is what I need.

  4. The Federal Way Extension just opened two months ago, and now it’s already needing a full day of “essential system maintenance”?

    So much for Sound Transit’s announcements about a new era of system reliability.

    I guess this means I’m glad the 515 and 550 will be staying around, to accommodate the inevitable shutdowns on the Lynnwood Extension and Crosslake Connection. It would be nice to have a reliable train to restructure around, but apparently Sound Transit isn’t able to give us one.

    1. When will the Lynnwood segment even get a shutdown? I want to see a Metro bus go to Lynnwood. Has it even ever got a shutdown?

    2. Chances are that they found something bigger than they could fix in the few hours between last train and first train. This sort of thing happens sometimes, particularly with new projects. It’s teething, nothing more.

    3. I don’t know if the FWLE being shut down for a day is anything worth reading into. The Starter Line for the ELE was shut down a few days over the summer for electrical work, and they regularly disrupt service on weekends in downtown Seattle for construction & maintenance.

      I also heard, on one of their meetings, that they were their doing some finishing touches for for FWLE. Maybe this is related?

      ST has its issues for sure, but I just don’t think this is one of them.

      1. Yes, disruptions like this are regular things, and that is a bad thing that demonstrates ST’s incompetence at reliably operating trains.

      2. That’s why ST is doing so much scheduled maintenance now, to try to improve reliability before the World Cup and full 2 Line service. It may not eliminate all the unplanned outages, but hopefully it will reduce them substantially by later this year.

      3. @Mike Orr, that’s why I haven’t been grumbling about the periodic closures lately. Some pain is obviously needed to fix things.

        But on Federal Way? Which just opened a couple months ago? If Sound Transit couldn’t make it good quality this fall before it opened, why should we think they can make good-quality lines now?

      4. It sounds like it’s calibrating the power system. Maybe that couldn’t be known until actual passenger loads are on the trains all day. This is preventative work. I’d rather have that than random breakdowns.

    4. I’ve long said and expected that 2026 will be the year that public opinion significantly shifts from what ST is building to what ST is operating. The lack of new Link stations opening for several years, the costing mistakes of ST3 that extend opening dates, the limited value of building new extensions (as they only improve overall travel times for a small segment of current riders) and the less than stellar quality of the current or soon-to-open Link design and construction combine to create I think will be a notably changing perception of the agency’s mission.

      I think of it as building versus living in a custom home. It’s much more exciting to dream up plans and seeing things getting built than it is to move into your dream house and find out the design and construction mistakes with daily use. Plus a house quickly becomes more judged about what it’s like to actually live there as opposed to looking at stylized renderings of life there. Your architect becomes less important; your handyman becones more important.

      Once 2 Line crosses the lake in a few more weeks, I’m expecting the shift to really take hold. By the end of fall football season, I think that the public will perceive Link much more on how it’s operating.

      ST may internally think that their biggest impact on public perception in 2027 will be continued progress on Stride and the various Link extensions. But I think it’s going to instead be how well the current system is working — as ST ridership growth after 2026 will pale compared to its growth over the last decade in percentage and absolute terms.

      1. Hopefully this feeds into public opinion on good design. Maybe voters & elected official will realize that shallow & surface stations are easy to enter & exit, whereas deep stations can take several minutes to navigate.

        I’m very hopefully that Stride, in particular 405N, will demonstrate the value off well designed BRT, which could then allow voters & leaders to be more accepting of a good bus project rather than a crappy rail project. Right now, many people insist on a train to WS or Issaquah or whatnot because “train” = “good transit.” We need more good bus transit for the public to grasp what is possible.

  5. Happy to see progress on re-electrifying the 12 and 2, with new overhead wire on Madison, and removing low tree branches from the 19th Ave stretch of the 12. With all the hype about new battery-electric buses (which is great!), let’s not forget to get the trolleys back as clean-air vehicles. It’s been what, 5 years of dieselization?

      1. I’d probably like to see electric buses rather than buses with overhead wire. Trolley buses can only run on specific areas (similar to how Community Transit has double deckers which can only run in specific areas such as I-5), and electric buses are quieter and don’t have to literally use wires.

        RapidRide G getting an electrification? I don’t think so.

      2. RapidRide G was was supposed to be a trolleybus until Metro/SDOT realized it would be infeasible to get 5-door trolleybuses. There’s literally trolley wire above most of the route.

      3. Metro intended RapidRide G to b a trolleybus route, but there was no American manufacturer with trolleybuses with left-side doors. The Buy America provision requires an American factory to be eligible for American grants. Many bus companies won’t set up a US factory or won’t offer their state-of-the-art models because the US bus market is too small for continuous operations: it’s just one or two orders and that’s it. The technology not being available in the US is grounds for a waiver from Buy America but Metro hasn’t pursued it, the feds may make it hard to obtain even if they’re not supposed to, and Metro may value the image of using US vehicles over using the optimal vehicles.

      4. Metro does seem to be testing Solaris (Polish? company): https://kingcountymetro.blog/2024/12/23/king-county-metro-signs-landmark-deal-to-welcome-new-bus-manufacturer-to-north-america-expand-zero-emission-fleets/

        While Metro only looked at Solaris’ battery buses, Solaris’ trolley expertise seems much stronger than domestic manufacturers: https://www.solarisbus.com/en/vehicles/zero-emissions/trollino

        They have no-artic, single-artic, and bi-artic trolleys. I’m assuming both-side-doors is on the table too still

    1. Subway Builder is neat but for me, the lack of topography/bathymetry makes it feel goofy in light of the heavy focus on geometry, costs, and operations. I mean, the developer included an estimate of foundation depths for every structure based on building height but can’t include a digital terrain model?

      1. The game is still in Beta. Iirc the dev wants to add more topographical features in the near future. It’s honestly pretty fun right now even without it.

      2. Yeah it is a huge bug for that aspect. In this game, you can build a cut-cover shallow tunnel through Montlake Cut.
        It probably is less of a problem for scene like NYC and Chicago where topography is less dramatic.

      3. “ It’s honestly pretty fun right now even without it.”

        And it is hard enough even without it.

  7. “ A Love Letter to the Articulated Bus”

    I’d agree that American cities tend to oversize their transit fleets. The fleet size seems to be largely governed by street condition rather than popularity of the services.
    Perhaps it made sense back in the 50s that 40 ft was default fleet size, but not anymore. In my opinion 35 ft should be default and 40-60 ft should be considered if demand warrants. I guess it all comes down to the fact fuel price here is relatively low compared to other countries so agencies are not that sensitive to what model to run.
    Seattle transit’s popularity is well above the curve, so you guys might not feel that way, but in cities like Atlanta where tons of routes run 45-60 min headway carrying 3-digit ridership daily, running them in 40-ft fleet is such a joke.

    1. It’s not as simple as it seems. To avoid leaving riders behind, buses must be sized for their busiest trip, not the average trip. Even in suburbs, some bus routes that are normally very empty can often have one full trip per day due to a school letting out. Larger buses also leaves more room for passengers to spread out, both for personal space, luggage, and to get further away from undesirables.

      The marginal cost of operating a larger bus over a smaller bus is very little (fuel is cheap). And, it simplifies fleet logistics to have fewer types of buses. Really, the only reason not to use large buses all the time is constraints related to the physical streets (e.g. tight turns).

      1. I understand that capacity is governed by busiest hour, but what I am saying is there are tons of fixed routes out there somewhere in the country that never had one day fully seated.

    2. 75% of the operational cost is for the driver, so a long vs a short bus is practically irrelevant. Buses are sized for their maximum peak load on especially busy days, and it’s inefficient to deadhead back to the base and switch to another bus in the middle of the day.

      It’s just a corollary of mass transit, like how the Empire Builder is only 25% full when it leaves Seattle but 100% full across North Dakota. If it were 50% or 100% full leaving Seattle, there would be no room for the North Dakota riders, and there’s no transit alternative there.

      It’s also based on bus availability. The long buses are assigned to the fullest routes, and the short buses to the emptiest. But in the middle there may be a mismatch between the number of long or short buses available and needed, or some may be in maintenance and unavailable, so Metro has to make compromises. You may have seen red RapidRide buses on regular routes or vice-versa, or Metro buses on ST Express routes. This isn’t supposed to happen, but it does when no more suitable bus is available that day.

      1. I don’t think it’s that high, as the cost per service hour is now well over $200, and bus drivers don’t make $150/hour, even after adding employer-share social security/medicare taxes and benefits.

        Still, the cost of the driver is a lot, and doubling the capacity of the bus probably doesn’t come anywhere near doubling the price.

        Trailhead Direct should also serve as a good caution for what can happen when buses are too small. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes, space can be very tight, and sometimes people get outright left behind. The bus only runs every 30 minutes, and missing one because the bus is full and people do get left behind. Shrinking buses is penny-wise, pound foolish.

      2. There’s a layer of administration on top of driver costs, asdf2. There’s also a substitute driver pool for regular drivers’ paid sick and vacation and holidays. And of course many get overtime pay too! $200 per hour is realistic to me.

      3. I wonder if it’s even feasible for Metro to determine cost per service hour for different coach models with all the shared facilities and maintenance workers.

      4. Of course it’s feasible with the statistics you currently have. Though it may not be a good way to represent the future it’s a good way to learn from the past which is what we learn from not the future.

      5. … what? You think we have statistics on service costs by coach type?

        I can’t parse what you’re trying to say about past versus future.

      6. What I’m basically saying is that we can try to estimate service costs by coach type using past information (which we learn from the past and take it for the future).

      7. I agree it is what you describe, cost different of operating larger fleet is very negligible compared to labor, but you still can cut that kind of cost if demands is far from requiring 40-ft bus.

      8. Ok, but how do you know Metro would be readily able to produce stats on costs to operate different coach types? That’s what I’m asking.

      9. Depreciation is also a big chunk of the operating cost. If the cost of a new battery electric bus is around $1 million, and the bus is depreciated over 12 years, that’s about $228 per day in depreciation cost. Plus, the cost of building the OMFs may be included in the depreciation. The last time I looked at operating expenses, depreciation was about $1 a mile, and that was quite a few years ago.

        Even though Metro only pays a fraction of the cost of purchasing a new coach, I’d be very surprised if they don’t depreciate the full price of the bus.

      10. Hey, GuyOnBeaconHill.

        What about other coaches? Are you targeting only electric buses or are you going to target other coaches to prove stats?

  8. Today, I saw a lot of Community Transit buses getting delayed at the intersection of 212th and 76th because of an ICE protest. I wasn’t on the buses but I was protesting with a couple of friends. I also saw traffic increase and was higher than usual, cars honking, students yelling and holding signs, it was all crazy. When I got back to school it was empty, and I even saw the assistant principal from my school eating at Dairy Queen. I didn’t appear in the pictures but I recognize a lot of students that go to my school in the pictures, this was the first student led walkout I have ever experienced. My point is that I think this is an issue and causes a lot of congestion.

    1. There’s an Edmonds article explaining what happened, I was being too brief about the pictures and what happened. But over 200 students walking out of school to protest at 76th/212th is a big transit issue that causes congestion. Though it was quite an experience, I’ve seriously never experienced anything as crazy as this. But I bet this wasn’t as crazy as the No Kings protest in Seattle that occurred in June… That delayed a lot of buses and not just the 102, 114, and 119. I swear every bus that I saw at that intersection, all of them got stuck on a red light, we need better signal priority and make sure walkouts don’t happen so congestion doesn’t occur!

      1. I was at No Kings. It started at Seattle Center and went south on 5th. We thought they’d be on 4th so we went north from Westlake there, along with a group from the ferries. We finally found the marchers at Denny Way; they were just starting to go south. We walked south, a whole street of people. When we got to Westlake again I had to sit down. The marchers were turning there to go west on Pine. My friend and I went into the Asean Streatery, while a second friend sat on a stair outside.

        When we came out an hour later, the march was still going strong, and my friend who had stayed outside said it had never let up. We continued to 1st where it ended.

      2. That sounds rough, Mike. Did you even happen to drive by 76th and 212th yesterday? I saw the 7 Eleven crowded with students, and me and my friends just went into Dairy Queen (which was full of students) and we got kicked out.

        I did happen to get some film of the protest and I was just surprised how the school let us leave and come back when we wanted.

        Here’s the article explaining what happened:
        https://myedmondsnews.com/2026/02/edmonds-woodway-students-stage-walkout-to-protest-ice/

        Also why does it say Edmonds Woodway students? It was mainly College Place MIddle students (including me) that walked out.

      3. No, I’ve only been to Snohomish County a couple times since Lynnwood Link opened. I’m glad a protest that large is happening there and not just in Seattle. We need them all to show that a lot of people in both large and small cities and different walks of life and political persuasions want to keep our American freedom and democracy and rights until the midterms come and we can show it in votes.

  9. My God! I just read the” better billion” website…. And what a total mess! Mamdani promised free bus service in New York City. That’s a campaign promise. He either stands and delivers, or he’s no longer mayor. [ah]

    1. The public never got a chance to compare expanded subway service because the free buses slogan came so close to the election and a subway alternative wasn’t mentioned. Some people voted for Mamdani for other reasons or his general outlook and judgment and ability to deal with a hostile federal administration, not because of “free buses or bust”, or maybe they didn’t even want free buses, but they had to choose the best or least bad candidate overall. He could also explain to voters that the problems lower-income riders face could be addressed with income-based fare discounts, and that would leave money for better overall transit they may want.

      1. Mike Orr,

        “The Public” ? Mamdani campaigned on free buses. If New Yorkers voted for the guy, they voted for “free buses”. How could you possibly think the Mayor can walk this back?

      2. Were they voting for a mayor or were they voting on a bus referendum?

        We just had an election between Harrell and Wilson. I voted for Wilson because I thought she overall had better ideas and judgment. She promised a big housing levy, which you say is unrealistic. I didn’t vote only on the basis of that levy, and in fact I’m not wedded to that levy, I just want her to make some improvements in housing. If she decides the levy is not possible or something else is a better next step, she’ll have to explain that to the public, and they’ll either believe it or not. It’s not like we were voting on a housing levy referendum. We were voting for a person, and usually you like some things about a candidate but not everything. You only have two choices, so you choose the better one overall.

        Suppose I love the housing levy and I say if Wilson doesn’t pursue it, I won’t vote for her again. But her next opponent is Harrell again. Do I vote for Wilson who didn’t keep her promise for a big housing levy but did do something for housing, or do I vote for Harrell who would be worse for housing?

      3. Mike Orr,

        Mamdani ran a campaign that chose goals that would help the poorest people in New York City, starting with free buses. Is that a good idea? I don’t have any idea but I’m not an expert. I’d like to see what that looks like before passing judgement, Better Billions wasn’t elected and I don’t like their plans or timeline. My big problem with Democratic Socialism is government help somehow starts to creep into the upper classes when there are still so many lower income people skipped over.

        I’d never support “social housing” for people making $85,000 a year when there are still people making $35,000 and sleeping in their car. That doesn’t mean I don’t support a lot more housing built for the least amoung us however. But public housing is not “social housing”.

        Mamdani’s goal, at least in his campaign, was to help the poorest New Yorkers as soon as possible. That’s not the “bon bons for the upper middle class socialism” that’s popular elsewhere.

      4. The point is what’s best for transit mobility and lower-income people overall. Better Billions has the burden of convincing both the politicians and the public that subway extensions would be better than free buses. Mamdani could say that as he’s learned more he’s realized this. A large segment of the public may realize that too, or they may not. If the state refuses to allow free buses, Mamdani would have to fall back to a plan B anyway. The point of subway extensions is they allow lower-income people to reach more destinations, jobs, and errand needs. The public hasn’t been asked that directly yet, so we can’t assume they’d all say, “No, we still want free buses instead.”

    2. I found Mamdani’s promise for free “bus” service a curious word choice. That’s because most NYC transit trips are on trains, not buses.

      AI is telling me that rail ridership is almost triple bus ridership in NYC.

      The reason Mandani’s platform on the web site advocates for free buses is partly to make the buses run faster. Collecting fares does take time. However I’m not sure if that delay is as pronounced given newer payment options beyond cash into a farebox. Regardless, it does specify buses rather than transit generally. And subway trains are not slowed by fare collection since it happens at turnstiles.

      1. A quick Google search says that making buses – or trains – free would require approval of the governor, which likely isn’t happening, as there is no extra money to tap into to replace the fare revenue. But, the other part of his promise – making buses fast – is something Mamdani does have control over, as the city controls the streets, and can therefore, add bus lanes to cover more routes.

        If he can simply make the buses faster, even if he can’t make them free, his impact on transit will be a success.

        (Also, by the way, I love that the mayor is giving the humble bus its due, rather than simply ignoring all transit that isn’t trains, the way somebody only interested in wealthier people would).

      2. For just the MTA, the subway had 2.2 billion rides in 2024, compared to 775 million bus rides. NJT adds another 130 million bus rides (not all of these are in NYC proper, but a substantial amount are. Though they won’t be free). You can explore NTD data here: https://data.transportation.gov/Public-Transit/2022-2024-NTD-Annual-Data-Metrics/ekg5-frzt/explore

        The policy reasons for the free bus campaign were primarily about cost and equity, since poorer New Yorkers are much more likely to rely on the bus for some leg of their journey, a dynamic that is doubly true in the post gentrification era. There are modest time gains to be had as well, but I think it’s better to understand that as secondary. And it would have been extremely difficult to finance free transit on all modes precisely because the subway has such high ridership.

        I’m generally in favor of free transit. I think fares are regressive and negatively impact ridership. But only if there is funding to back fill the revenue. It seemed to me that Mamdani had a specific plan for this, though I’m not sure if the higher cost estimate sinks it or not.

      3. Thanks for digging into the data, blumdrew. As I said it’s about 3 to 1 rail/ bus boardings.

        I will add that between rail service offered by Metro North, LIRR and NJT (and Amtrak), most trips entering and leaving NYC are also predominantly rail. The NTDB doesn’t distinguish those clearly. And of course, Mamdani has no control over those fares.

        I also point out that if buses are this slow and crowded, NYC should have undertaken a massive transit expansion plan for more grade-separated high-capacity transit a few decades ago focused on these high-volume and slow bus corridors. The Federal contribution would have really helped had this been done in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The Second Avenue subway is a high-cost signature project, but that’s mostly for Manhattan residents who aren’t more than a quarter of the entire City of New York population — and it’s been identified as a corridor for a century.

        Personally, I think it’s better to charge a modest fare with the funds used to modernize and upkeep stations (with more escalators) as well as to expand the system. I think our region demonstrates a better model of fare management, with our low cost and free fare aspects being more like a government refund or subsidy unique to the user. When things are universally free from the start, the public treats it as a given and often they don’t respect or appreciate it.

        What would that new high-capacity transit be? It would take a few years of technical study. I would however suggest looking to something like Alstrom’s Citidis walk-through trams, that can be lengthened to fit the demand or adjusted for the size of the tram stops. Then NYC would need to take a hard look at creating more exclusive tram lanes by taking away on-street parking.

      4. In a normal country the NYC subway would have been continuously extended and maintained throughout the 20th century, alongside with strategic bus lanes and BRT where appropriate. But new lines and extensions stopped in 1958. That was it until the Second Avenue Subway in the 2010s, which was only part of the envisioned line.

        In Europe, cities were devastated in WWII, and spent the mid 20th century rebuilding infrastructure. They kept more transit than in the US, but several countries at least adopted a Los Angeles style automobile long-term vision. Then after the 1970s oil-price shocks, they made a hard switch to reducing dependence on foreign oil, so that led to a transit-infrastructure renaissance. In the 80s Germany began building light rail in cities both large and small, and building downtown tunnels for its trams. In the 1990s in The Netherlands, a public outcry arose over cars killing children, and that led to the mega bike infrastructure and extensive transit it has now. London continuously starts a new subway line as soon as the last one is finished to keep up with ridership and population increase; otherwise the system would melt down with overcrowding.

    4. I assume Mamdani will do what he can to make buses free. But the mayor does not decide the bus fare. The MTA is a state agency, and the governor has more power over the fares than anyone else. So it’s not a done deal.

      I think pointing out the tradeoffs is a useful thing to do. You could spend more money to make buses free… or you could spend the money on something else.

      1. No, just no to the concept of free fares. I know agencies that have done that and let me tell you… IT NEVER GOES WELL, at least for adults. For youth riders it’s understandable, but please let’s stop him and every other city/agency in the country from doing this. I really feel bad for Luxembourg (a different country with free transit).

      2. What does “it never goes well” mean? Homeless people and crime filling buses?

        Several small towns, college towns, and rural areas in the US have free buses, because the fare revenue isn’t much more than the cost of collecting it. Intercity Transit in Olympia is free now, as is Island Transit on Whidbey Island.

        In Europe some larger cities have gone fare-free. Tallinn, Estonia, has been doing it for years. Its scheme is the city buys passes for all residents, while visitors and people from the suburbs still pay fares. More recently a few other cities adopted free fares for climate goals (to reduce driving). I haven’t heard the result of these.

        From the examples in the mid 2010s like Tallinn, ridership increases only 10% or so, and the general demographics or trip patterns don’t change.

        The US has a unique problem in industrialized countries with high inequality and an inadequate social safety net, so a lot of people are really struggling, and getting mental health and addiction issues because of it, or get really stressed over their situation which leads to anger blowups. This raises particular issues with making transit free in large US cities if these problems spread more to the bus as they’ve spread to sidewalks, parks, and libraries. But that doesn’t mean free transit in other countries would have these problems. Because the people in this demographic are more likely to have a home to go to, healthcare, and maybe a basic income.

        What’s happening in Luxembourg?

      3. Luxembourg has free transit, but I feel like free transit always draws lower ridership for adults.

      5. I am against free fares, it would bring no revenue (losing the whole point of how transit makes revenue), and also (as you said) encourage homeless people to get on transit. It would also probably do mid in ridership.

    5. I think a lot of NYC votes were “not the other guy” rather than any specific campaign promises Mandani made. Campaign “promises” are just media hype to get elected. Then the reality sets in of running a city. We’re seeing that in Seattle.

    1. At this point Everett should just consider dropping their transit brand and merging with Community Transit. That would be more successful, bring more revenue, and create a streamlined system across the county, and also have better regional connections… THAT INCLUDES EVERETT LINK!!! They do consider raising fares and sales tax, but that’s exactly what Community Transit already has, their sales tax is double theirs and their fares are 25 percent higher. I feel like Everett Transit is just failing in everything, ridership, coverage, economics, the whole system.

      1. The point of Everett Transit being a separate agency is not to have better transit, it’s to keep taxes down by having worse transit than the rest of the county. If they merged, the sales tax in Everett would have to increase to match the Community Transit rate, and the people of Everett wouldn’t like that.

        That said, if Everett Transit is looking for a way to improve itself, I would start by straightening bus routes in downtown Everett. Way too many routes jog back and forth for seemingly no reason, bloating travel times.

      2. I would say to merge Everett and Community transit systems. They have considered raising the sales tax to increase revenue, as well a fare increase which Community Transit’s fare is 50 cents higher. I mean what Everett lacks Community is abundant of.

      3. Transit agency mergers are great in concept, but can be challenging to accomplish. Everything involved with a transit operation has to be changed —- from driver staffing and seniority and work rules in a union negotiation to who owns and maintains vehicles and where maintenance and storage take place to mandated paratransit options. And all of that is before issues like route structures, coordinated service hours and branding / numbering and parallel spans of service.

        That’s not to say that they shouldn’t be merged. It’s only to say that it can be challenging,

        Looking ahead, both agencies should ponder which bus service structure is best once Everett Link opens (if it ever does as proposed). How does each transit agency want to interface with a high-frequency Link line? I would also think that anticipating driverless buses should also be on the radar screens.

  11. [ah]

    Anyways, the new Gillig Electric buses were in service the last two days. But they’ve been out of service today. We’ll see if they come back.

    1. Interesting. Of course, implied by this comment is Metro having enough spare diesel buses in their fleet to be able to take all of the battery buses out of service at once without cancelling trips.

      It sounds like the way battery buses are being implemented is, there’s still keeping the original diesel buses around as backups for a least a few years, effectively, growing the fleet without growing service. Which is probably the prudent thing to do in the short term when piloting new technology, but, of course, would be cost-prohibitive to do in the long run.

      1. Yes, Metro has pivoted from wholesale fleet replacement to as-needed replacement, which makes much more sense from several perspectives but doesn’t achieve the zero-emissions-fleet goal by 2035.

  12. Speaking of free bus service, how does the funding structure for ORCA LIFT and free youth transit work? My understanding is that the state reimburses agencies (from the CCA?)?

    1. I’m not an expert in this but my understanding is the state mandated free youth fares and gave grants to cover it. ORCA LIFT and other income-based discounts come out of the agencies’ budgets I think.

  13. I have some ideas for fixes to ST3 to address the 30+ billion dollar shortfall, this was inspired by the STB Editorial Board:

    Everett Link:
    – Truncate north at Mariner, since the latter is a high ridership area and north of it the light rail won’t probably get a lot of ridership speaking of the travel time and redundancy with Swift Green and the future Swift Silver (let’s not forget only one line continues north). So the safest option is to truncate the line from 16 miles to 5.5 miles.

    Ballard Link:
    – I’ve noticed local corridors connecting Seattle neighborhoods to Downtown have been successful via enhanced buses (for example the G is the best as it was very successful). So we’ll drop the project and instead heavily upgrade the D, like give it center running lanes along the route, and you can have buses run every 6 minutes like the G. Besides the ST3 plan is to give Metro money to upgrade them anyway, so the leftover money has already addressed a significant portion of the shortfall.
    – Add center platforms to the current four DSTT stations to address crowding, this would mean access to the train from both sides (left and right).

    West Seattle Link:
    – I would drop the project since the cuts will just lower ridership, and instead (like the D), heavily upgrade the C to run every 6 minutes on center running lanes and enhanced buses (which I forgot to also add to the D). I dislike the Delridge to SODO idea, and I don’t think there is any point in rebuilding SODO Station.

    Stride:
    – I would recommend to drop Stride S3 (instead improve buses in it’s corridor), and with dropping the latter you can restore the 522’s routing on Lake City Way (where it performs the best). It could at least save half a billion (which is enough to build an extra mile of rail).

    Tacoma Dome Link:
    – Hmm… Speaking of the abundance of express buses, the cost, and the large gap between South Federal Way and Tacoma. I would consider this expansion provisional, except re-route the line onto I-5 and not SR 99. I also don’t support demolishing the Christian Faith Center and a lot of single family housing for an OMF site, but it’s too late anyway.

    South Kirkland-Issaquah Link:
    – I would not send it north to Kirkland (a bad terminal), but it would continue west on I-90 towards Seattle (overlapping the 2 Line). This could relieve congestion and add more purpose to the I-90 segment which many people worked hard for years, I can also see ridership increase. As a South Kirkland to Issaquah corridor should be BRT and not HCT, this also would replace express buses to/from Issaquah.

    T Line:
    – I would drop the TCC extension and instead improve Pierce Transit buses greatly in Tacoma.

    Sounder:
    – Another option to Ballard Link is that you would give the N Line new infill stations (at Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, Smith Cove, Belltown, Symphony, and Pioneer Square). Most of the BNSF tracks are already similar to the Ballard Link routing, but this would require a large agreement with them. I would also increase frequencies on the N Line to run 10-15 minutes but no more often since demand may be significant between Ballard and Downtown. You would also need to build a new maintenance base where the OMF Interbay site will be if the stub alternative is chosen for Ballard Link, but again this is just another option and is optional. Though this would be applied along with the other improvements. Though the N Line would only run at peak when demand is at it’s highest.
    – The S Line can instead get it’s frequency increased and use smaller amounts of cars rather than waiting longer and getting longer trains. The first option would be more convenient to the rider.

    Parking:
    – I would cancel out all new facilities, if parking is really an issue then we could consider charging people to park (which is planned), but at ALL facilities.

    Extra:
    – Automation could be considered for light rail cars (brought up by the Urbanist).
    – Avoid private property and build projects in emptier spaces.
    – Don’t overthink/overdo the design and construction elements.
    – Don’t start construction on a project on the whole route, start station by station.

    That is all, any feedback?

    1. This ignores the different financial situations of the Subareas. They’re not going to break subarea equity any more than they already have to built DSTT2. So, you need to consider the sources and uses of funds by subarea (https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/documents/2026-Proposed-Budget-Financial-Plan.pdf)

      Snohomish County
      Everett Link: ST says Snohomish County can basically afford Everett Link as planned, and SnoCo wants light rail to the industrial area around Paine Field. No need to truncate, especially as short as Mariner.

      North King
      Ballard Link: Connecting Ballard, LQA/Uptown, and SLU to Downtown and beyond is objectively the best project planned under ST3. Of course, it’s saddled with a redundant second tunnel that the region can’t afford to build. Chop DSTT2, but build the rest of it.

      West Seattle Link: Unlike the D, the C and H have a very fast segment in the middle with dedicated lanes on the West Seattle Bridge and SR-99. The routes get stuck in Downtown (like very other bus) but otherwise are much faster. WSLE should be delayed unless West Seattle agrees to become a Regional Center and legalize very tall apartments around the terminal station.

      Sounder: heavy rail passenger trains every 10-15 would literally be impossible to fit between freight and amtrak. You’ve posted about this concept a lot and never taken any corrective feedback on it.

      East King
      Stride: S3 is mostly a bus corridor improvement project, so you’re basically saying scrap the branding but do all the work anyway. This wouldn’t actually save any money, just shift the costs to Metro or WSDOT (which definitely don’t have the funding).

      (no mention of the 4 Line?)

      South King
      Sounder South: ST has already basically abandoned lengthening stations.

      Pierce County:
      T Line: Have you read this series? https://seattletransitblog.com/2024/05/28/better-transit-in-pierce-county-the-t-line/

      Tacoma Dome Link: shifting it back off SR-99 to I-5 is going backwards in terms of good transit and station walkability. The MOS is Federal Way to Fife (5 miles, 2 stations). They should build the MOS and force Fife to upzone around the “temporary” terminus.

      Others:
      Parking: This is basically already the plan.
      Automation: I’m pretty sure STB posted about automation first.
      Avoid private property: yes, ST should be allowed to take ROW where available.
      Don’t overthink/overdo the design: this is part of the Enterprise Initiative
      start station by station: this would force ST to overthink and overdo the design of each station and be inefficient for funding and planning. They would have to design and build each station as a permanent terminus until they confirm funding for the next station.

    2. I like some of these but the political infeasibility has made me give up detailing utopian lines. It’s a gigantic lift just to get ST to consider a single-tunnel solution or a sensible CID2 station location, and that’s what I consider the highest priorities. If Ballard Link fails we’ll need a fallback, but we don’t need more than a vague concept until then.

      I’m against expanding Sounder North to replace Ballard Link, because that would lead to much less frequency and span and a station too far from the Ballard village and out-of-direction for the entire population. When we’re talking about how good subways run every 2-6 minutes, a train every half hour, hour, or four hours but not evenings or weekends just isn’t effective transit. It can be a niche supplement like Sounder is, but it’s not a primary transit solution.

      I wish the 522/S3 would continue serving Lake City and Roosevelt, but the decision is being made by people who don’t think it’s important. That’s the apparent view of the Northshore constituency the line is being built for, because they told ST they want “the fastest way to downtown”, and none of them have spoken up against the move to Shoreline South.

    3. You want to drop Ballard Link but keep parts of Everett Link and Issaquah Link? Sorry, but that absurd. Ballard Link — for all its flaws — is by far the most cost effective rail line in ST3. It is the only major project that would get a lot of riders and save those riders a lot of time. An extension of Lynnwood Link (to Mariner) would get a handful of riders and very few new riders. Most of the riders wouldn’t save much time. You are much better off just adding the ramps to Ash Way (which would be very cheap) and then putting the rest of the money into bus service*.

      Same story with Issaquah Link. Issaquah (and Eastgate) to Downtown Seattle will be very good once East Link opens. A bus will travel on the HOV lanes from Issaquah to Mercer Island (and includes serving Eastgate). The problem is serving Downtown Bellevue. But you don’t need a train to do that. In fact a train would just cause an extra transfer for a lot of riders (coming from various parts of Issaquah). You need a ramp connecting the HOV lanes of I-90 to 405. This would cost somewhere around half a billion, according to page 148 of this document. They estimate a cost of $640 million but that includes NB I-405 to EB I-90 (Renton to Issaquah) and the reverse. But even if you included those ramps (which I’m sure someone could use and might even include a bus someday) you are well below what Issaquah Link will cost. Yet most of the riders come out ahead. Use the savings for (much needed) extra service.

      Investigating a possible station in Belltown might be worthwhile but otherwise there is no point. You just aren’t going to get many riders on a commuter train from Interbay or Golden Gardens. North Sounder in general should be terminated. It is ridiculously expensive per rider. Everett still has an express bus to Downtown Seattle. Service from Mukilteo has improved dramatically because of Lynnwood Link. In both cases you could add a few extra buses and save a lot of money. Edmonds is the only area where people would be substantially hurt with the loss of North Sounder. But there still aren’t that many riders (less than a hundred). I propose the following instead:

      Run a bus every fifteen minutes from 185th Station to Edmonds, via 185th, SR-99 and then the pathway of the 909 (on SR-104). Community Transit would probably just end the 909. That would be a big improvement for people trying to get to Seattle from Edmonds (or the other way around). Overall that would be a fair amount of bus service but it is highly likely you come out ahead — that train service is very expensive. Without a doubt you have a better network.

      *Until you add the bidirectional HOV ramps to Ash Way I would have the 512 should skip the park and ride. I would also extend it into Everett but that gets into the overall ST bus network and that is another beast.

      1. Scooby Doo suggested replacing Issaquah Link with BRT. Creating HOV access between 90/405 is good but only half the project. Similar to how Ballard Link is misleadingly name (it’s a project to serve Denny/SLU/LQA with a terminus in Ballard), “Issaquah Link” is primarily about serving SE Bellevue (Factoria & Eastgate), not Issaquah. An “Issaquah Stride” project will need to include 1~3 new freeway stations on I90; these may be on the scale of the ST3 85th & 44th interchange rebuilds, but still billions cheaper than a rail line along I90.

        Kirkland Link as a spur for East Link is another common suggestion. If there’s a need to boost frequency on the UW-Seattle-Bellevue core, adding a short 1~2 station spur to Kirkland could be very compelling if ST concludes the Bel-Red segment would struggling with high frequency.

        As for Everett Link, the extension to Mariner is straightforward and compelling. I would been keen to see a cost/rider analysis for Lynwood-Mariner standalone. I suspect it will stack up well against Ballard Link. ST plans to run double the frequency Lynwood-Mariner (two lines) vs Ballard-Westlake (one line) due to forecasted demand, and the project cost/mile should be at least half.

      2. I’ve also suggested replacing Eastgate Way with better bus infrastructure including a bus only ramp/lane onto I-405.

        Cheaper and more useful. No need for expensive flyovers.

        The bus can serve the freeway stop, Bellevue College SW corner, the adjacent part to the P&R, and Eastgate Way before entering the on ramp to 405… While largely skipping on ramp traffic. The only additional time loss is the time to merge to the express lanes after that, which is negligible. 405 North traffic past Renton really isn’t that bad even during peak. It exists but can be bypassed with bus lanes.

      3. As for buses headed back to Issaquah, there is basically never traffic on the right most exit lanes of 405. The traffic stays on the lanes that continue south on 405. So while it’s annoying, the buses would keep to the right lanes and take the regular exit without much time loss (unless there is an unusual significant accident/delay).

    4. S3 is mostly a bus corridor improvement project

      That is where a lot of the money is going and where we can have some savings. They are planning on spending an enormous amount of money to widen the road just so that drivers don’t have to slow down if someone is making a turn (as they currently have to do on another part of the exact same highway, closer to the freeway). But that is not what all of the money is for. Like all the Stride plans, they have special buses with a special bus barn. This costs quite a bit of money. It is like arguing over some of the park and rides for Sounder. Sure, they are a huge waste of money. But they are built, so there isn’t much we can do about it now.

      1. Man they are digging a big ass hole at 85th in Kirkland. That boondoggle is wasting a huge chunk of tax dollars and when done will do essentially nothing.

      2. Bernie:
        I agree completely that the Stride Station in the middle of that interchange (85th and l-405) will be the least desirable place to wait for a bus.

        It’s a shame that the entire east side rail line was not upgraded to at least Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) light rail route like the Sprinter in San Diego County capable of carrying 4 to 5 buses and operators worth of passengers with each DMU. Connecting the Tukwila Sounder Station to Renton, Wiburton (for Bellevue), downtown Kirkland, Totem Lake and Woodinville, the stations for that rail line are in far better location than the unusable Stride line on L-405.

        I’m pretty sure the use of that rail corridor was de-railed by lakefront owners between Renton and Factoria and one lobbyist for the Sierra Club whose property backed up to the ROW in Kirkland.

        The Sound Transit study was laughable and sad as it called for running of all things a full up Sounder Train on a limited schedule. Anyone looking at the Armageddon of I-405 appreciates the demand for a mass transit line free of stalled traffic in both the regular and carpool lanes. Stride will do nothing to change the current abysmal state.

        Maybe sometime in the future the now trail corridor will be upgraded to a Rail with Trail Route after the folly of that Stride route is exposed.

        As Ross states above, “there isn’t much we can do now”.

      3. Even though Stride is cheaper than laying rails and hanging wires, I think its cost effectiveness per rider is still a problem.

        The logic of ST3 was not focused on cost effectiveness. It was more of a proposal to get a majority yes vote. While it was successful in that it got approved, the reality of what was assumed in the proposal is now increasingly obvious. I think more and more people are realizing that the projects that are being designed are not particularly thought through well to benefit transit riders — unlike Sound Move and ST2. Instead, many ST3 projects include promises to use tax money to fix other problems than to improve transit rider travel time or experiences.

      4. Believe me, I know the 85th St. project in Kirkland is causing major traffic congestion, but the eventual finished project will vastly improve service for transit riders. Whether or not the Stride station at 85th becomes successful depends on the upzones in Rose Hill (the area at the top of the hill near 405). It’s very similar to the FHSC and its dependence on the growth of the Yesler Terrace neighborhood. If Rose Hill develops into a 15-minute neighborhood of businesses and housing, the 85th Street Station will be successful. If not, then Kirkland will still be Kirkland.

      5. Less desirable than the existing freeway stations at Kingsgate or Eastgate? Freeway bus stations are definitely worth the direct access to center HOV/HOT lanes.

        Transit is getting the HOT lanes on 405 for free, a multi-billion WSDOT investment paid with zero transit dollars, so contributing cash for two of the interchanges is a fair trade politically, in particular with WSDOT accountable for ongoing maintenance.

        85th/Redmond Way is an important east/west corridor; the perpendicular transfer between Stride and 250 is a really good addition to a grid network on the eastside. I think the interchange rebuild includes HOV lanes on 85th in addition to a dedicated HOV exit cum bus stop, so the 250 should improve even for those not transferring.

      6. Ross, you think the Stride bus base is “a waste of money”? The region needs additional bus base capacity, we were at capacity pre-COVID, and Bothell is a good location operationally. Without Stride, either KCM or CT would need a greenfield bus base expansion to meet long term bus fleet demand. ST pulling a subset of their fleet out of KCM & CT bases allows for those agencies to expand their fleets commensurately.

      7. Less desirable than the existing freeway stations at Kingsgate or Eastgate?

        These are P&R lots that happen to be close to the freeway. I don’t recall a P&R being part of the deal at 85th. It would be stupidly expensive (more than other P&R garages) and it’s already in a heavily congested traffic area so pretty pointless.

        The flyer station at Totem Lake works well and has a P&R. It’s walking distance to Evergreen Medical Center and connects with the 255. Extended bus service from there to points east and south would be a much better investment. You just have to look at the crater they’ve made at 85th and it’s clear what a terrible idea this was. It would be interesting to know the cost of 85th vs a similar concept at 522 which I think will be useful.

      8. the Stride station at 85th becomes successful depends on the upzones in Rose Hill

        Which means it’s doomed. Upzone in Kirkland means combining 2 suburban lots and building 6 townhomes. That’s what’s happening all over both north and south of 85th. I know there were a couple of mixed use projects that were proposed (or the same one that moved) on the old Albertson site and across the street in place of Lee Johnson. Even if both sites were developed it’s not much and few people are going to make the death march on 85th to use transit. They are all going to own cars and the majority will be commuting to Kirkland (Google) or Redmond (Microsoft); no freeway station required. The biggest reason people want to go to Rose Hill is for the Costco. That should tell you all you need to know about the importance of transit to the area.

      9. There was the office tower project for 6K workers immediately next to the station. The project didn’t move forward up the land is still zoned for 180 feet. https://www.theurbanist.org/2022/12/20/google-plans-for-new-sustainable-high-rise-campus-in-kirkland/

        96 townhomes at 128th: https://www-djc-com.ezproxy.spl.org/news/re/12166642.html?
        135-unit at 132nd: https://www-djc-com.ezproxy.spl.org/news/re/12163854.html?

        There also this neighborhood called “downtown Kirkland” in the other direction, most of which is within 1 mile of the station.

        Eastgate (Bellevue College) and Kingsgate (hospital, mall) work because they are destination, not just P&Rs.

        My key point is the “desirability” of a transit station isn’t really important if the transit service is fast, frequent, and reliable. This station will be safe, clean, and have shelter from increment weather. No one will not use the station because of noise.

      10. Ross, you think the Stride bus base is “a waste of money”?

        Yes, absolutely. The same goes for the electric buses themselves. It is a huge waste of money.

        Without Stride, either KCM or CT would need a greenfield bus base expansion to meet long term bus fleet demand.

        That is ridiculous. Stride will only use a handful of buses — a tiny fraction of the buses Metro runs and nowhere near as many as they used to run. Just consider when we run the most buses: peak. Yet peak bus use has gone way down. Even without the cutbacks it has gone way down. It wasn’t that long ago that Metro was running buses every 2 to 3 minutes down SR-522 (just because of crowding). Now they are abandoning the corridor and leaving it to ST, who will run one bus every ten minutes — and a bus with a shorter route at that. That is a lot fewer buses! That is just one corridor. Buses like the 41 don’t exist any more. The buses that do operate are not nearly as peak oriented. Meanwhile, Stride only has three routes. Three! That’s it. It is basically a rounding error on the number of buses Metro needs during peak.

        The only reason they needed a new barn is because the buses are electric. Otherwise they would have just contracted with Metro. Leave it to ST to make a simple project (half-ass BRT) and turn it into a multi-billion dollar fiasco. Of course it could be worse. We could be Tacoma (where they screwed it so bad the project got cancelled).

      11. The interchange at 85th and I-405 adds value. It allows riders of crossing buses to transfer. There will be some walk-up riders although most likely, not many. It is expensive and at some point you have to wonder if it is worth it. Would we be better just putting the money into bus service? In this case the two perpendicular destinations are Downtown Kirkland and Redmond. With the interchange you will have a north-south transit corridor (Stride on 405) and an east-west bus. This means that in theory you have four combinations (Bellevue to Redmond, Bellevue to Kirkland, etc.). This means you would need four buses to do the same thing (if you didn’t want riders to backtrack). But one of those (Bellevue to Redmond) is better with Link. So that leaves the possibility of three additional buses. The buses would not need to serve all the stops (riders are expected to transfer either way). So maybe something like this:

        1) Bellevue to Kirkland.
        2) Totem Lake to Kirkland.
        3) Totem Lake to Redmond.

        All buses would use 405 to make the journey quickly (as quickly as Stride would). At this point you’ve basically matched the functionality of the interchange. In the first case things are clearly better. You’ve got an express from Kirkland to Downtown Bellevue (no transfer required). Likewise if you served the transit center, then riders in Totem Lake have a much better trip from there to Downtown Kirkland. But in general it is similar. Riders heading to Downtown Kirkland from Lynnwood would transfer to the second bus (at Totem Lake) instead of transferring to the 250 (at the 85th interchange). Of course the bus routes would be adjusted based on the overall network (e. g. the bus from Bellevue to Kirkland would probably also go to Juanita) but that could happen either way.

        It is quite possible that just running buses is cheaper, even in the long run. It also offers more flexibility. Enhancements are easy (like Totem Lake TC to Downtown Kirkland) because you are already committed to running express buses. Compromises are easy as well. Maybe you live without the express bus from Totem Lake to Redmond bus. Many riders would prefer Link just because it runs more often. The bus would be faster (less back and forth) but not that much faster.

        I don’t know how much it costs to run buses but the interchange is extremely expensive and not expected to get that many (riders https://seattletransitblog.com/2018/04/30/kirklands-ne-85th-brt-station/). Sometimes you are just better off just adding service.

      12. Oh, and there is a similar situation in Renton. The future Stride bus (as well as buses like the 566) would ideally serve the heart of Renton and then continue. At the same time, you don’t want those bused delayed (since Bellevue is a bigger destination). Ideally you would want some sort of busway (elevated or underground) that served Renton Transit Center (and maybe a couple other stops). Of course this would cost a fortune. The alternative is to just run more buses. So basically:

        1) Burien to Bellevue express (skips Renton).
        2) Renton to Bellevue
        3) Burien to Renton

        As long as each bus has decent frequency (every 15 minutes) you achieve much the same thing as the busway. You are just spending more operations money and less capital. Of course you can also compromise. Maybe add a bunch of red paint so that the bus that goes through Renton isn’t that slow. Or you do a half-ass job of covering Renton but the trip from Burien to Bellevue is still pretty fast. Or you do some combination of this; only run the Burien to Bellevue express during peak — otherwise you rely on red paint. In a lot of ways the situation is similar – you can solve the problem with a major construction project or by running more buses.

        In contrast, some projects make existing trips considerably faster. For example connecting the HOV lanes of 405 and I-90. This would allow a bus to get from Eastgate (or Bellevue College) to Downtown Bellevue much faster. It could just get right on the freeway and be there in five minutes. This would have a major impact on other trips as well (that go through the corridor). There really is no good alternative to that project and while it would not be cheap it would be quite beneficial for the East Side (and a much better value than Issaquah Link).

      13. @Ross,
        Yeah, pretty much what I think; way too much money for “in your dreams” ridership that may happen someday… or not. There’s plenty that can be done, now, with bus service that would actually increase transit use from existing development.

        From the Totem Lake Flyer station all they need to do is add customer service from DT Kirkland to Totem Lake via 405. The 255 already makes this loop except it’s “to teminal”. The drivers used to let me hop on going from Kirkland to Totem Lake in the mornings and it was sweet.

        My thought for Redmond is reinstitute the service that was on 130th and served Lake Washington Institute of Technology (aka voc-tech). That’s a huge parking lot that is low hanging fruit if transit wasn’t abysmal. Whether it goes east on 85th to DT Redmond or continues south to Lake Washington HS + Houghton and gets (eventrually) to DT Redmond via Old Redmond Rd I can see arguments either way. Houghton BTW has become mostly pickleball courts and skate park which actually gets way more use than the P&R with no bus service (go figure). I’d lean toward 85th to DT Redmond mainly because it gets you to Link faster. The other choice would be Totem Lake TC to DT Redmond via 124th and Willows road. Decent transit on Willows that connected to Link at one end and 405 express service at the other would be a winner.

        The money to dig a hole and fill it back in is already gone. The question now is how much bus service $$$ does ST or Metro throw at it to try and gin up more than onesie twosie ridership.

      14. Instead of Issaquah Link, they need to spend the money on improvements to Bellevue Way with bus lanes, signal priority, and queue jumps.

        Send BRT from Issaquah to Mercer Island and Issaquah to Bellevue TC via S Bellevue all day, with peak hour express trips to Kirkland via 405 (stopping at Bellevue TC on the way)

      15. spend the money on improvements to Bellevue Way with bus lanes, signal priority, and queue jumps

        Not sure there’s much you can do even with a big pot of money that doesn’t exist. Bellevue City Council pushed hard to get a southbound HOV lane on ST’s dime as part of Eastlink. Bellevue didn’t have any leverage so it didn’t happen. For the record, I think it would have been a colossal waste of money. Digging into the steep bank and the cost of building retaining walls would have been huge. It really only “helps” for a couple of hours in the afternoon. And my bet is induced demand would quickly eliminate any travel time advantage; just another lane of gridlock. Buses would be stuck in said gridlock except I can’t understand why a bus would with Eastlink running. Adding two lanes is out of the question because of the swamp and now train tracks. The only traffic light south of “the split” is at the Swamp & Ride lot. There’s already queue jumping after a sort and really not enough buses to warrant such a thing once Eastlink crosses the Lake. North of “the split” there’s no way to add a lane(s) and I can’t see why you’d want to. It’s not that congested. NB you go to Bellevue TC. SB buses could turn left at “the split” and backtrack to Old Main Station. In short, once Eastlink crosses the Lake Bellevue Way is irrelevant for transit.; until the bridge sinks… again.

      16. Bernie, the Link doesn’t run on Bellevue Way with the exception of South Bellevue Station.

        Most people work and live on Bellevue Way, not on I-405. Express bus service can be fast with the right infrastructure throw Bellevue Way. Riders can transfer to Link if they want.

        Trying to build absurdly expensive HOV flyovers for just a few buses that can take perfectly good existing roads that need minor upgrades doesn’t make sense. The flyovers should go where the road congestion is, which is to 405 South and Renton. That’s where the traffic and lines are headed to from I-90… Not 405 North.

        Bellevue Way can be extremely fast for buses if the right upgrades are made, and serve the right places. There is congestion on Exit 9 which can be relieved with a bus lane.

      17. There was the office tower project for 6K workers immediately next to the station. The project didn’t move forward

        I checked out the link; Googles “3rd Campus” in Kirkland. Circa 2022 it was DOA with Covid and work from home. It was suggested for the Lee Johnson site which later failed as an alternate for the Alberson site redevelopment. I had to hunt to find Google Campus #2 in Kirkland. Even googling it was hard. Seems to be something “up the hill” from DT on or near NE 85th. Google really doesn’t have a big presence on the eastside. The location of their main campus pretty much speaks volumes to how committed they are to “drive up convenience” when trying to hire way employees from other tech companies. Kirkland sees Totem Lake as their “goose that lays the golden egg” as in Bellevue North. There’s a glut of office space in the Seattle area. The completed buildings in the Spring District are remaining pretty much empty and there’s no reason to think that’s going to change overnight after the 2 Line is extended.

        spur to Kirkland could be very compelling if ST concludes the Bel-Red segment would struggling with high frequency

        The Bel-Red segment will be struggling for ridership. Even the most optimistic ST projections tell us that. While I think the train will get used (I will) it’s going to be nowhere near capacity for decades. I’ll let you know when I have trouble finding a parking spot at 130th.

        this neighborhood called “downtown Kirkland” in the other direction, most of which is within 1 mile of the station.

        Hee hee, 1 mile being the elevation change. This is exactly the problem with transit to DT Kirkland; can’t get there from here. It was built there because it was on the Lake and you could float logs across. It’s so inaccessible that the RR skipped it. Note that to get from 85th to DT the first thing you do is cross over a perfectly good RR alignment.

      18. “ Most people work and live on Bellevue Way, not on I-405.”

        South of SE 3rd Street, Bellevue Way is mostly low to medium density residential with hills on one or both sides of the street. It’s less urban than other areas — even areas within Bellevue. So I don’t see a disconnect between Link serving this part of the corridor as there isn’t a viable corner for another Link station south of Main Street.

        That’s not to say that the density isn’t impressive north of that through Downtown.

        The situation to me is an example of how the relationship between ST and Metro needs to be fundamentally revisited. The corridor seems perfect for a RapidRide — but that means service moving from ST Express 550 to Metro.

        The dreamer in me wishes that Downtown Bellevue could be navigated on foot more easily — with escalators and moving sidewalks. I’m not sure what that system would look like but walkways and paths and stairs alone don’t seem enough to fully cover Downtown Bellevue’s many dense blocks. Whether it’s a short free minibus shuttle, a short streetcar, a gondola, a sideways elevator or people mover or just moving sidewalks/ travelators, it seems a more effective use of transit funds given how Downtown Bellevue feels like Manhattan in density scale while the surrounding city feels like outer Long Island with much much lower density.

      19. Most people work and live on Bellevue Way,

        What people where on Bellevue Way? From “the split” north there are a lot of old mostly two story multi family buildings. I drove a bus for BSD 405 and had that route for a time (both north and south of DT). There’s really not much demand. People that live there drive to work or they are retired. If people are inclined to use transit they are not long distance commuters but people that want to access DT Bellevue.

        Exit 9? Are you talking about 520 and the section of Bellevue Way north of DT?

      20. walkways and paths and stairs alone don’t seem enough to fully cover Downtown Bellevue’s many dense blocks. Whether it’s a short free minibus shuttle, a short streetcar, a gondola, a sideways elevator or people mover or just moving sidewalks/ travelators,

        I’ve seen a free (I think) electric (I think) shuttle running around near DT lately. It’s called Bellhop (I think) and looks like a golf cart turned into a stretch limo. No idea who is funding this but I see it running from near Overlake Medical Center to the Spring District.

        Comparing DT Bellevue to Manhattan… that’s a stretch. Even comparing DT Bellevue to parts of Seattle is a stretch. Yeah sure there are some tall buildings but it’s seriously not that big. And I hope it stays that way ;-)

      21. “ Comparing DT Bellevue to Manhattan… that’s a stretch. Even comparing DT Bellevue to parts of Seattle is a stretch. Yeah sure there are some tall buildings but it’s seriously not that big.”

        While the density in parts of Midtown and Lower Manhattan is much higher in skyscraper districts, lots of Manhattan has walkup apartments at densities similar to Downtown Bellevue’s many apartment blocks. They just don’t have the underground parking. Downtown Bellevue’s has some taller apartment towers too.

        And once outside the Downtown districts, it’s hello suburbia! There’s barely any transition zone.

      22. lots of Manhattan has walkup apartments at densities similar to Downtown Bellevue’s many apartment blocks.

        There’s lots of Manhattan compared to Bellevue’s many few apartment blocks. The population of Manhattan (what New Yorkers call “the City”) is 1.6M. That’s 10X the population of all of Bellevue.

    5. It seems that you’re eager to think outside of the box. That’s a good thing.

      However, ST3 draws different corridor commitments. Deviating from the corridor may be legally challenged.

      Instead I would suggest thinking about the technology and vertical profile changes for each corridor instead. Deep stations with bored tunnels are awful for short urban train rides anyway.,

      For example, Tacoma Dome Link could operate at a lower frequency on a single track with bypasses and have battery electric trains that go 79 miles an hour — much faster than Link. That train could then hopefully use the tracks for South Sounder nearby to reach Lakewood. This Pierce County could have 20 minute service between South Federal Way and Lakewood rather than 10 minute service to Tacoma Dome — and many transit transfers would shift from Tacoma Dome to South Federal Way, and the travel time between South Federal Way and Tacoma Dome would drop from 17 minutes to 13 and it would likely be cheaper.

      However, the big problem is West Seattle and Ballard Link with DSTT2. The other cost increases have been somewhat reasonable, but those projects were costed badly. Thus, there is going to be an eventual political fallout as the subarea equity deals may fall apart. Everyone on the Board today makes nice — but it’s going to have to be addressed at some point.

      I’m expecting that the result will be a push by Seattle to come up with the additional funds as opposed to the entire ST district. The question becomes how steep will Seattle be willing to add taxes to its residents and businesses to pay for the underfunded rushed 2016 shopping spree called ST3.

      2. I’m not sure ST has ever had the gumption to seriously propose a change that would create a legal challenge. It’s too easy to just wave that threat around instead of actually proposing something different. To be fair, it’s not ST’s mandate to come up with innovative solutions but rather to pass tax bills and then spend it. Getting spending bills pass they are good at. Spending they are REALLY good at. Want something different? The the way the ST board is appointed has to change… maybe to elected office. Want more of the same; do nothing.

    6. Another option to Ballard Link is that you would give the N Line new infill stations (at Ballard, Magnolia, Interbay, Smith Cove, Belltown, Symphony, and Pioneer Square). Most of the BNSF tracks are already similar to the Ballard Link routing, but this would require a large agreement with them. I would also increase frequencies on the N Line to run 10-15 minutes but no more often since demand may be significant between Ballard and Downtown. You would also need to build a new maintenance base where the OMF Interbay site will be if the stub alternative is chosen for Ballard Link,

      No, no, no, no, no, NO! It is beyond absurd to think the you can have ultra-frequent commuter trains on the last five miles of “The Northern Transcon”, including passage through a diesel-soaked one hundred and twenty-five year old tunnel in which you propose to stop those commuter trains twice.

      The Port of Seattle would like a word with you about your proposal to increase the distance of their connection to Chicago and other points east by a hundred miles.

      Give it up. It was an embarrassment that Sound Transit toyed with the
      idea of a single station at Symphony and actually made a diagram of how it might “work”. This is the sort of thing that map fanatics come up with, with no thought for the “externalities” of their grand plans.

      1. Haha, this was just a possibility, and what about the time ST had conflicts with WSDOT and Mercer Island about adding light rail to the I-90 center lanes? Exactly, what Mott MacDonald said, you simply have the temptation of saying that this is impossible because of those challenges.

      2. The center lanes were intended for future rail, and the federal funding for the 1980s I-90 project stipulated that. Originally Mercer Islanders were given a special privilege to use the express lanes as SOVs: that was always intended to be temporary until rail was built.

        But when the time for Link came, Mercer Island argued its temporary privilege should be permanent, and also objected to off-island buses using its P&R as a transfer/layover hub. I don’t know about any conflict with WSDOT. Kemper Freeman sued to try to get East Link stopped because real people drive cars, but he wasn’t WSDOT or any government entity.

      3. Mike and Tom, the BNSF tracks are also made for commuter rail. Tom, are you really against increasing N Line frequency to 10-15 minutes? Okay, since you don’t like that, we’ll continue to run trains every 30 minutes. Are you okay with that?

        “The Port of Seattle would like a word with you about your proposal to increase the distance of their connection to Chicago and other points east by a hundred miles.”

        That’s not even what I said! Do you even pay attention to my replies, or are you just guessing? I LITERALLY SAID AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, THIS ISN’T REPLACING INDUSTRIAL RAIL!!! WHAT I’M SUGGESTING IS TO ADD INFILL STATIONS ALONG THE ROUTE TO MEET PEAK DEMAND FOR THE LOSS OF BALLARD LINK!!! UGH!!! PAY… ATTENTION… TO… WHAT… I… SAY!!! That wasn’t even the intention of my proposal, so in chill terms please think before you reply, just please. I brainstorm the best I can to save as much as possible and this is what I get? Please.

  14. sadly not surprised to see more violence in Rainier Valley. I don’t see anything improving with Wilson in charge either.

    1. Wow, and still nothing for the light rail along MLK. I really feel like the center ROW can be converted into center lanes for the 106. And you can re-route light rail along Georgetown.

  15. What a stupid thing for some nutters in New York to propose. “Extending the subway 49 miles” will cost many, many, many billions of dollars, not one, Why are stupid people given platforms?

    2. Well, the article makes it clear that they propose to spend $41 billion, a billion a year for forty-one years, which seems that it might work. But even that won’t.

      In 41 years inflation of only one-and-a-half percent will mean that a billion dollars will buy only $10 million of construction in constant terms a pittance. Except in severe recessions the US always exceeds that level of inflation.

      “But”, you might say, “the fare revenue you are not collecting would also have gone up!”, so you can spend extra over the one billion to account for inflation, too.

      But can you? Bus fares are famously “sticky” with much grumbling if they go upscale amounts (though that’s easier with e-payment) and large rebellions if they ju.p a dollar.

      So the billion you would have collected this year is likely just a billion you would not have collected next year,but subway consymtruction will CERTAINLY be more expensive next year. If past is prologue, quite a bit more expensive.

      What makes more sense is for New York to increase eligibility for low fare access and keep the normal fares intact while investing in some of those low-cost “extensions” using LID’s.

      There’s no way the Second Avenue line is going to be extended south, though.

      1. “go up small amounts”
        “jump a dollar”
        “year, but subway construction”

        Poor proof-reading.

      2. Poor proof reading!? What about your big mistake you just made about the BNSF corridor being replaced with frequent Sounder service, huh? I was talking about possibilities but do you appreciate them? NO!!! NO YOU DO NOT!!! IF YOU’RE FINE WITH HALF HOURLY SOUNDER SERVICE THEN FINE, DEAL WITH IT!!! YOU’RE GOING TO WAIT FOR IT ANYWAY, NOT ME!!! HOW DO YOU LIKE NOT ADDING INFILL STATIONS!? HUH!? HOW DO YOU LIKE SPENDING BILLIONS OF YOUR MONEY ON BALLARD LINK!? HUH!?

    1. Yeah I’m of two minds on this.

      It’s a better place for regional buses to use as it’s closer to the freeway exits. And the nearby retail seems more active than Renton’s downtown is. On the other hand, it’s away from the high school and post office, and the site is surrounded by massive stroads on at least two sides.

      So it’s seeming to make the transit center more about commuters with cars and less about those who don’t have cars making local trips.

      1. It will be such a huge time suck for buses to get from the freeway to the new TC. It seems like they could have figured out something different and better. Oh well, one more sound transit disappointment.

        It is across the street from the homeless hotel though so those folks might see some benefit. (Assuming it’s still a homeless hotel that is)

        Otherwise it seems to be in an inconvenient spot for just about anything

    2. Renton service badly needs a restructure. Most people live up on the southeast side of 405, but almost all service directs people toward the TC where they need to make an untimed transfer.

      There was a good plan on this blog back in 2014 which focused service on routes continuing through the TC to connect to Link and argued that time savings would make up for losing the all-day 101 express. I think continuing through the TC is a very good plan whether or not we couple it with that.

      1. There are lots of apartments and people in SE Renton. It’s a bit spread out but it’s still populated. People really underestimate it and think it’s a rural desert like their own places up in Bellevue and Redmond. Therefore all the transit should go up there instead of Renton. There are plenty of apartment complexes in SE Renton that are still unserved by bus routes without taking long walks.

        The 102, 148, 153, and 160/ future I Line riders will *gladly* approve of Stride and hopefully a restructure of the 102 to serve Seattle directly more often without wasting time going through Downtown Renton. The 101 can still serve Downtown though, but the 102 needs more service. Rainier Valley Link transfer is an acceptable compromise.

        The only ones losing out would be 105 riders, but the 111 is and will be much better for riders into Bellevue and Seattle..the 105 mostly remains best for trips within Renton and those headed S/SE. It’s always been that way.

        The 907 though would be a bit annoying. I think the 907 should revise and be replaced with a better all day dedicated route (could be called the 103) that connects Maple Valley and Renton. It could use Petrovitsky road and SR 515, while serving unserved stops/apartments en route, to reach the new S Renton Transit Center directly. Probably 30 mins frequency peak 1 hour off peak makes sense, unless it’s more popular than thought.

        Another “express” route that would help is Covington to Renton which would fill in a few more transit gaps in East Hill Meridian (though most of it is pretty low density), as well as a few apartments in Renton via 116th. Though a 168+566/Sounder ride works pretty good so this one isn’t really helpful.

    3. The reason Renton gave for the new transit center was to reduce the number of buses in Renton’s core. In other words, buses are a negative impact and cause congestion, never mind that it negatively affects passengers to put bus stops just on the periphery.

      I’ve suggested an article on the new transit center and how it fits into the whole, but nobody has picked it up yet so I don’t know when/if we’ll have one.

      1. I’d be interested in writing something up. Who should I contact if I wanted to put together a draft?

  17. Has anyone taken the shuttle from Angle Lake to Federal Way? I saw a NB shuttle with the Lynnwood head sign, wondering if they’ve updated the SB headsign to finally be something other than Angle Lake… since that would be awfully confusing

    1. This came up in the last downtown tunnel closure when southbound buses said “Link Shuttle – Angle Lake”. Somebody said the headsigns are reprogrammed only at the twice-a-year service changes so they can’t show other destinations in between.

      1. Sort of crazy to have headsigns pointing to Angle Lake when those buses are going from Angle Lake to Federal Way. I could easily see a rider at Kent Des Moines getting on a bus going to Federal Way instead

  18. I have seen SDOT workers up and down Madison this week hanging and adjusting trolley wire, all held on to temporary support wires via carabiners. This morning it looked like they were replacing some of these with insulators. Anybody know what this project is about?

    1. Hopefully it’s filing in the gap created during RapidRide G construction so that the 2 can use trolleybuses again. Metro intends to do that but I don’t know it’s timeline, and it said it would take years to finish. (Due to budget limitations?) Hopefully it will finish sooner than that, although this could be just a preparatory step.

      1. Could be related, but it seemed like a more extensive project than that – the SDOT crew I saw this morning was up at 15th, well past the point where route 2 turns off, and the trolley wire continued on east from there. I’ll have to walk further down Madison when it’s less wet out and see what the exact range of the work is.

  19. Here’s what the Federal Way Link maintenance today is: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/light-rails-newest-stretch-to-close-for-a-day-for-electrical-repairs/

    I can’t transcribe all the details from the paywalled article, but it’s for “electrical adjustments and inspections” to avoid “unanticipated voltage fluctuations which caused at least one train stall”. One problem is copper wires being stolen, which ST’s increased cameras and security have been unable to prevent. The gaps in wires interfere with trains, and the thieves “usually damage other railway equiment”. “Saturday’s work is in anticipation of a [Super Bowl] victory parade next week” if the Seahawks win. Past train outages the work is intended to minimize in the future were on December 27, and January 1, 17, and 19.

  20. “Saturday’s work is in anticipation of a [Super Bowl] victory parade next week”

    I wonder if they’ll find any grappling hooks left on the tracks when they run the overloaded trains ;-)

Comments are closed.