New post on Page 2: Renton’s Transit Center Moves Toward I-405. If you’re a reader and interested in lending your perspective on transit and land use in the region, contact us.

This is an Open Thread.

55 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: bill comes due”

  1. A couple Link observations as of late…

    1) Is there another cracked rail in the DSTT? Northbound trains are going super slow between IDS and Pioneer Sq. Trains then speed up about a third of the way after departing Pioneer Sq.

    2) Real-Time displays for Northbound trains are not showing the 2-Line. They’re all consolidated as the 1-Line. This is an issue because we don’t know which arrival will be a 2-car train. If it’s a 2-car, then people have to scurry to the center of the platform. This also makes it more difficult for ADA riders who exit from elevators…which are located at the ends of the platforms.

    1. I noticed that same thing recently. I watched two trains pull into the NB platform of Pioneer Square just crawling. It seemed clear that something was amiss. I also wondered if a rail was damaged.

      I also got faked out by incorrect arrival signs at Symphony Station. I positioned myself and my bike at the south end of the NB platform. (I have more success getting me and the bike on at the rear of the train.) The train pulled in and kept going past me–it was a 2-Line train afterall. I scooted down the platform but did’t feel I had the time to board with a bike so late in the dwell cycle. Waiting on the platform for the next train I noticed that the Line number would change between 1 and 2 for specific trains.

      1. Link operator on Reddit says there’s a 10mph slow order between IDS and halfway to symphony. No indication of reason, but presumably cracked track.

    2. Yes. The Link train that I was just on was moving very slowly between Symphony and CID — and I waited 5 minutes for a 1 Line train at Westlake.

      It got bizarrely slow again between Beacon Hill and Mt Baker.

      I hope there’s not some problem going on with the train control. I really hope that it’s just the track. I lived through the Muni Meltdown 20 years ago because some system designer just assumed that the computer system could handle all the input info responsively. It took a few years to get it working right. The Link operation tonight with its sudden slowdowns felt similar to that.

  2. The north Rainier exit from westbound I90 is the only ramp that doesn’t have a pedestrian crossing, and they are going to close it? I feel that this is going to cause an even bigger bottle neck at the current south Rainier exit to solve an issue that doesn’t exist.

    1. I agree it seems a bit odd that they focus so much on removing the only on/off ramp that is grade separated from pedestrians.

      the other fixes do look good though with ‘teeing’ up the ramps. currently it is kind of a death trap whenever i try to walk to the bus stops (and probably future judkins park station)

      1. The project does feel a bit like it’s mainly just to create a driver’s mental transition from freeway to city street so they’ll slow down. That helps pedestrian safety and is a valid objective.

        Still, it feels to me that there should first be a station access plan for people going to and from Judkins Park Station — from every mode including not only pedestrians but those getting dropped off or picked up, arriving by Metro bus or shuttle, and bicyclists. With the station opening in about a month, we will soon have a real-world understanding of the station area circulation and won’t need to speculate about it. I hope this recommendation can still be revisited once the station opens — just in case some critical element was overlooked.

      2. You won’t have a choice but to slow down…losing a lane in each direction is going to slow Rainier to a crawl in both directions at most times (it’s already pretty terrible heading north). And WSDOT is most certainly going to want make the traffic signals prioritize turning traffic from I-90 instead of Rainier Ave through put.

    2. The current NB Rainier ramp from WB 90 will run through the new light at Bush St and the SB Rainier Ramp so I think re routing the NB Rainier Ave exit is probably meant to lengthen the back-up space for exiting I-90 traffic waiting at that light. It’s too short as is and traffic is probably more likely to back up onto the mainline.

      I get most of these changes and think they are generally better with the exception of reducing lanes on Rainier. It seems like there is some weird idea about turning Rainier into a “street” with bike lanes. I commute to work via bike through this area nearly every day (but I go down MLK the I-90 trail, Hiawatha, and Dearborn) and there’s nothing that they can do here that is going to ever entice me to ride on Rainier, and I’m totally comfortable riding in traffic on normal streets (stroads, not so much)…too many turning options and angry or oblivious drivers. There is also already a bike path running along the north of Rainier in front of the station …it’s kind of a loop from the I-90 trail from Atlantic Park to Judkins Park, so I don’t understand the need to narrow the road for that. Plenty of room on the East side of Rainier to have a similar path as well.

      1. typo…bike path runs currently on the East side of Rainier in front of the station entrance

    3. Between Grand St. and Bush St. there will now be 5 traffic signals where there used to be 2. Somehow, that doesn’t seem like it will speed up cars or buses. Northbound on Rainier, north of the Grand St. bus queue jump has become a mess. Supposedly, the bus lane doesn’t end until Massachusetts St., but anyone wanting to use the I-90 entrance ramp has to ignore the bus lane or they’ll get cut off when they try to merge onto the I-90 ramp. The bus lane should end immediately after the Grand St. queue jump.

      Southbound, the light at Bush St. may make it easier for the 7, 9, 106 to stop at JPS, but there will need to be a queue jump at that intersection, too.

      And, am I reading this right? WSDOT is considering a roundabout at Bush St. It looks to me like all the traffic exiting from I-90 would have to dosey-doe with all of the traffic on Rainier at that location. Does anyone think that a roundabout at Bush St. would be anything other than disastrous?

      1. It is Bush Place. I don’t mean to be picky, but when I did a search, Google got confused. Anyway, yes, they might add a traffic light — the might add a roundabout. The idea being that drivers have to have a way to exit the freeway and head north. A roundabout seems plausible. Either way the BAT lane (the far right lane northbound) should be able to bypass it and just keep going straight (without stopping).

        The only other traffic signal they might add would be for pedestrians. This would likely go along with the roundabout (since a traffic light would have a crosswalk). A pedestrian-only crosswalk tends to require a long wait and be timed with other crosswalks. Thus it won’t have much of an impact on traffic. But it also wouldn’t surprise me if they just don’t add it. There are no destinations on the west side of Rainier between Bush and the station. The station has a walk signal (or it will). Thus I don’t see why you need both. I suppose you could have a midblock pedestrian crossing between Bush, but and Charles (at around Norman). That would make this walk (https://maps.app.goo.gl/KQh8SkziEiRMDVzAA) a little shorter. Given the needs in the city for signalized crosswalks, this seems like a very poor value.

      2. I think a roundabout is a terrible idea and don’t know where they’d come up with the real estate unless they obliterate the park. The 1130 Rainer building (aka the old Darigold building, originally Black Mfg) is on the historic register and is set back only about 5′ from the existing curb.

        SDOT just rebuilt the curb and crosswalk on the SB side north of I-90. The on ramp lane could go straight through to the Judkins Park Station bus bay and maybe it will for transit only. As it is there are just plastic pipes sticking up to keep people from driving through.

    4. The best option is alternative 4. It would improve pedestrian safety and transit throughput the most. Alternative 2 is a step in the right direction. One nice bonus is that it doesn’t rule out eventually adopting Alternative 4.

      Both of the even-numbered alternatives get rid of the northbound westbound I-90 to northbound Rainier exit. This is very good. It means that the BAT lane (that goes under the freeway) can easily be extended. Those cars coming off the freeway will enter to the left, not the right . Thus they won’t use the BAT lanes. Not only that, but there won’t be many cars turning right. The next intersection (for cars) is Charles. It is a minor street. Dearborn is a designated Greenway (it no longer goes through) and while it probably gets more traffic, I doubt it gets a lot. Then you have a couple more residential streets before Jackson. By then the bus is making its way into the left lane. In other words, right now almost all the traffic in the right lane is coming from drivers on Rainier (who went under the freeway) or the freeway. By extending the BAT lanes (to King) the bus can avoid a huge amount of congestion.

      It is unfortunate that they didn’t implement the changes next to Atlantic Street Park. If I was more of an organizer I would have fought hard for this. Sure, it is better for drivers. But going north another quarter mile and then getting on the (brand new) ramp isn’t that big of a deal. By shutting off the on-ramp next to the park you do more than expand the park. You make the area safer for pedestrians. You also (again) have less traffic in the BAT lane. If you are driving north on Rainier and want to access some place to the east, you typically take a right on 23rd. For example, here is how you could drive to the trampoline Park. There aren’t that many places where it makes sense to just stay on Rainier. For example, the trampoline Park. The only significant exception is the freeway. This is the only place where you are likely to see a lot of cars trying to turn right. Thus, like the other change, you make the bus significantly faster when you finally add BAT lanes if you close that on-ramp. Basically Alternative 4 is twice as good as Alternative 2.

      1. I agree, Alternative 4 is the best but Alternative 2 is cheaper and they don’t even have a plan for how to fund that. Dearborn has a ton of traffic. More traffic E/W on Dearborn west of Rainer than there is on Rainer north of the intersection. Basically, the arterial turns. Dearborn east of Rainer has no traffic. Virtually all of the traffic on Dearborn turns south. North of Dearborn buses have a suicide lane SB.

    5. I’m surprised folks here (on a transit blog) didn’t quickly grasp the positive effect this change will have on transit. We discussed this very issue in the comments the last time around. I was tempted to write a post but I thought it was fairly obvious: BAT lanes are on the right. Right now the cars exit the freeway to the right. This is bad. Alternative 2 solves this problem. Alternative 4 would solve the problem of cars entering the freeway to the right.

      1. “Right now the cars exit the freeway to the right. This is bad.”

        Yeah it’s not ideal but still better than signal delay.

      2. I think the benefit for buses will be minimal and maybe a net negative. But this will make it less dangerous for people on foot and biking to access Judkins Park station. Not sure what you mean by cars exit the freeway to the right. That doesn’t appear to be changing. Cars will no longer be entering northbound Rainier from WB I-90 from the right, which is a slight improvement for the 7 and 106…but this has never been the pinch point when I have ridden these routes, but I’m not a regular on them. To make it “more better” would be to avoid the crossing of NB rainier traffic turning through the bus line to EB I-90…like a mini Bellevue Braid, but there’s probably not space and certainly not funding for that. The 554 ST Express, on the other hand, will now have to wait in a queue at lights to enter and exit the freeway…That will surely increase travel time for that route.

      3. Sorry, you’re referring to alternative 4, I see. yeah, that would be better for transit, but the 554 would require a significant reroute.

      4. jesus…sorry…no it wouldn’t. Alt 4 is better, but it seams like Rainier would get much more backed up NB due to the need to turn left to access the freeway.

      5. The 554 is being discontinued along with all direct bus service from the Eastside across I90. Service into Seattle from Issaquah will require a transfer to the 2 Line at either South Bellevue or Mercer Island station.

    6. They clearly just look at this from a vehicular traffic safety perspective. The preferred alternative extend the deceleration length and eliminated free-flowing merge at arterial. This will certainly put more pressure on signalized intersection. More volume processed by traffic signal will squeeze the green time for Rainier. Basically a lose to transit and peds but maybe a win for overall traffic safety.

    7. SDOT had a report that suggested closing the WB to NB ramp so that the land could get sold for redevelopment in order to partially fund the project. Maybe that is a consideration?

      In the last presentation they also considered closing down two of the lanes underneath the bridge. I’m not sure that’s necessary for ped/bike space, the sidewalk is already fairly wide/comfortable under I-90

      https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/I90-Presentation-JPSAdvisoryGroupMeeting4V3.pdf

      1. closing the WB to NB ramp so that the land could get sold for redevelopment

        No, there is no “land” to be sold by closing that ramp. What little space it takes up is in WSDOT and SDOT ROW. They can’t sell that for one it’s too narrow of a strip to do anything with or access, two it’s already dedicated to utility easements and three it would be inside the park.

        Taking the lanes isn’t because they need more space. Clearly they don’t. I think it’s supposed to be some sort of traffic calming. It would be total gridlock and still not improve pedestrian or bike access. Sometimes I think they just throw the spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks. Keep in mind this has zero funding, zero plan for funding and no timeline for construction.

  3. Not sure if it is worth building Issaquah Link without a dedicated station at Lake Sammamish State Park. The park is huge and the beaches could easily be expanded if parking was reduced.

    This could be a huge economic driver for Issaquah, as long as the city prepared themselves to handle the massive crowds.

    1. > Lake Sammamish State Park

      uhh i don’t quite understand your proposal like you want an infill station around tibbets creek road?

      though honestly if issaquah was to have two stations id do more like one at the west near sr 900 and one at the east at front st n

      1. I was thinking the station should go as close to the beach as possible or close to where Lake Sammamish soccer fields parking lot is.

        But I think an infill station where Tibbets creek crosses i-90 could work too and would be cheaper.

        I am not too concerned about a station on front street north because I believe the city is planning to use the old railroad tracks for a trolley to connect front street to the central Issaquah station. Also we could always extend the line there in the future, whereas that can’t always be said for stations where the line has already been built.

    2. I’ve long suggested that Issaquah Link needs a new next step: A more creative and participatory plan revisiting the placement and number of stations along its route. The original plan that ended up in ST3 was never part of a strategic corridor study. Instead, the version in ST3 was mainly just thoughtlessly stringing a rail line together using existing park and ride garages as station locations.

      I could see a station around there on a long list of possible alternative station locations. It surely has pros and cons. But what I think is really needed is a broader, unfettered number of new alignment and station alternatives to be developed and analyzed that offer different ways to look at how all the various destinations on the entire corridor can be best served and attract the most riders.

    3. Light rail should come with more stations within the major cities..

      I think (1) Issaquah Downtown (2) Gilman Blvd / Costco HQ area (3) Sammamish Park (4) Eastgate P&R (5) South Bellevue (6) East Main (7) Bellevue TC (8) Wilburton (9) South Kirkland (10) Downtown Kirkland (11) Totem Lake

      This would be a great alignment.

      1. (0) Issaquah Highlands P&R. It’s the most walkable, mixed-use part of Issaquah (or closer to what the rest of Issaquah should be), and the gateway to Sammamish, and Metro seems to think it has the best access to Snoqualmie/North Bend.

  4. The upcoming 3% ferry fee isn’t just for credit cards; it’s also for debit cards.

    I guess I’ll start carrying cash on my trips to the island, or actually use my Orca e-purse which I’ve been ignoring since my employer pays for a pass.

      3. They’re just joining the growing number of companies that are passing the high credit-card fees on to the customer rather than raising fares or forcing cash/ORCA payers to subsidize credit-card payers. The credit card companies did it to themselves with monopolistic fees.

    2. Meh, I get 1% cash back so it’s only 2%. WSF doesn’t accept checks anymore (probably haven’t for some time) but you can set up a Buisness Account where they’ll issue you any number of charge cards which are invoiced monthly and you can only pay by check. Losing the float and processing fees have got to be more than using a debit card. Every gas station that has a cash discount will accept debit cards like cash and so does WinCo. I guess Wave2Go is also dead in the water?

      2. You’re already getting the 1% back, so it’s more like 2.99% increase for you. It’s still not great and the legislature should just raise the rates instead of hiding behind credit fees.

      3. You’re already getting the 1% back, so it’s more like 2.99% increase for you.

        Help me with the math. I think you’re an accountant. Let’s say the fare is $20. 3% means I would pay and extra 60 cents. I get cash back, I’m guessing on the $20.60 but for round numbers 1% is 20 cents. My cost is $20.40, no? That I think is a 2% increase. Just enough that nobody cares but the State, over thousands of fares, makes a little more money. I’m fine with that. What really seems out of whack is the same surcharge applied to debit transactions. That’s surely just a money grab. Yet there’s still the business account loophole.

      4. Bernie, if the fare today is $20.00 and you pay with a card that pays 1% today, you’d get $0.20 back so your effective payment today would be $19.80.

        A 3% charge for processing fees would make the fare cost $20.60. You’d continue getting 1% back, which would give you $0.206, making the effective fare $20.394, an increase of $0.594, or 3% of $19.80.

        So, it’s still a 3% increase on your “discount” rate.

      5. We’re talking pennies which is part of my point but I think I get money back on what’s charged to my account. So if WSF charges more I get more money back. The real issue is convenience. You can use your credit card getting on the ferry. If the person at the booth has to ask, “is it OK to add a 3% surcharge” which I doubt with the intent of a hidden charge then Houston we have a problem.

      1. It’s not and I don’t expect any significant number of people will stop using a credit card. In fact more will opt for a credit card than debit. It’s really just a 3% fare increase that they can get away with. To be fair, they do need to raise rates but the public expects to get more and pay less. All most legislators care about is getting reelected so hidden fees or taxes are a winner.

      3. Someone at the state legislature probably looked at a multi-million dollar budget line item payment to a credit card processor, and decided the state needed compensation for that. The fact it happens to be an accumulation of thousands of tiny transactions is probably lost on them.

        The thing with the non-card transactions is they need someone at the ferry terminal anyway. They have to be there no matter if they are processing one or two payments or dozens. The unseen effort to tally and verify all the cash is lost on legislators too I imagine, though that also has to be in place no matter if they sell several cash tickets or hundreds. Dealing with reconciliation errors becomes a bigger problem with more transactions though.

        Anyway, it’s easy to see how someone on the surface, especially from eastern Washington that doesn’t deal with some of these problems daily, might think an extra fee is a good idea.

  5. I actually used Link for the 1st time to get somewhere as opposed to just joy riding on free days. I walked from the west side of the Sammamish Slough to DT Redmond. That’s the first time I’ve actually seen that station. There is not so much as a single sign that I saw anywhere until you are actual at the station. The escalator was working and fast. A train arrived shortly after I got up to the platform but had to wait for security to sweep the train and custodians to actually sweep the train. That took all of maybe a minute. During that time another train arrived; obviously on the other side of the platform. We sat and waited for a few more minutes with the doors opening and closing a couple of times for no apparent reason. The train accelerated rapidly up to a pretty good pace only to put on the brakes for the curve into Marymoor Village. Off again for Red-Tech. I was surprised at how not steep the climb is. They really cut into the bank I guess to level out the grade but also to go under 60th. No where near as steep as the grade on 520. At Overlake Village (aka Safeway Stop) the automated announcement got the side for the doors wrong. I wonder if it’s wrong everytime? Next stop was Bel-Red where I got off. I had though there was a station in “the Arts District” but there’s not. Really looking forward when I can ride the train to work. I noticed that the P&R was about 1/2 full. But none of the people I saw getting in their cars to leave had been on the train. Parking Poaching is going to be an issue but if the weather is decent I’ll be walking anyway.

  6. FWIW the train I noted as parked west of Judkins Park a week ago is still there. Likely they take it in every night but it seems to be permanent fixture. The reader board is lit up but too far and too much of an angle to read. I wonder if it’s the backup plan to evacuate people should a train get stuck on the bridge. Also, Tuesday afternoon there was a train stopped on the east side of the floating span with all it’s doors open. Testing I hope and not a genuine problem. That’s the second time I’ve see a train parked on the floating bridge.

  7. Sorry if this has already been discussed, but, is it not odd that the 1 line and 2 line don’t have a 1 or a 2 on the Marquis? I realize there is a green or blue box and they announce themselves, but why no number? If they just wanted to use the colors then shouldn’t we be calling them the green line or blue line.

    1. I saw line numbers on both the fixed and realtime signage in the station tonight.

      I’m not a systems designer so I’m not sure if Link train positions record train length.. Several of us have asked for train length information to be displayed on the signs. Some have asked for many years. Sadly, ST does not look to STB for ways to improve the information that riders are given.

      I did notice in the platform that the eastmost upcoming station diagram at Westlake’s southbound platform is displaying the stops northward instead. ST screwed that up. ST needs to do better. That’s a rather basic mistake.

      1. The car numbers would be nice but ultimately will be moot most of the time when everything is 4 cars long. I’m talking about a line number on a train. Identifying what line it is serving as opposed to just a color., one would think it would go next to the colored box next to where the destination is listed (on the front rear and sides of the train itself).

      2. I assume the colored square just requires some reprogramming that will take some time to implement, like how the Link shuttle buses said “Angle Lake” the last time DSTT was closed because they couldn’t say “Federal Way” until the next service change. The colored square probably goes back go when the lines had color names, and the 2 Line trains were procured on that basis, before ST switched to numbered lines and a white number in a colored circle. I assume the exterior train displays will eventually catch up, the way the 2 Line trains in the platform arrival displays first said “1”, then “2”, then switched back and forth every couple minutes, and are now at “2” southbound and “1” northbound, but will presumably be consistently “2” by the time Crosslake opens.

  8. Yesterday at Roosevelt at 6pm the southbound display said “2 Now, 2 Now, 2 2 minutes”. A couple was debating what it meant. I said it could mean the trains stacked up and are now coming through all at once, but I was still puzzled because ST would send them two minutes apart rather than literally simultaneously with one waiting to enter the station, so I said, “They may not be coming at all.” When a train finally came it said “2 Now, 2 Now, 2 Now”… but it was a 1 Line train.

  9. Is there some kind of delay right now in Seattle or cross-lake section of light rail?
    I saw more than normal amount of people waiting for Redmond-bound train at Bellevue TC and South Bellevue and the arrival board shows the next train is 9 minute away.

    1. Took the 2 Line from Bel-Red to DT Redmond around 3:20PM and there was no delay. When I got to the platform the next train to Redmond was listed as 6 minutes. A couple of minutes later it said 7 minutes. Then a minute or so after that it dropped to 4 minutes and the countdown was accurate after that. What do the two green arcs next to the time mean???

      I was surprised that ridership was noticably higher this afternoon around 3 than it was yesterday around 5PM. I was going the opposite direction so that probably accounts for it. Microsoft (aka Red-Tech) and DT Redmond are far and away the major ridership points. Make no mistake, the two car 2 Line is not crowded. I’d guesstimate about 25-30 people total. The P&R at Bel-Red had empty spaces but not a lot. As I noted previously, very few of the parkies are actually commuters riding Link. I wonder what the situation is at Marymoor and S. Bellevue. Probably not as blatently bad since neither of those are walking distance from anything (well, except Marymoor Park when they are charging $25 for event parking). I only recently heard there is a large parking structure added at Red-Tech? That probably has a lot of poached parking. I forget, is there free parking at Overlake Village?

Comments are closed.