Sound Transit’s monthly maintenance program is continuing in March with several service reductions over the next few weeks.
Reduced Frequency
Starting at 11pm tonight, 1 Line trains will run every 20 minutes. The reduced frequency is to allow single-tracking trains between Rainier Beach station and Tukwila International Blvd Station. The 1 Line will resume its normal headways at 5am Sunday morning.
Pinehurst Station Construction
To accommodate Pinehurst station’s ongoing construction, 1 Line and 2 Line service will be altered after 11pm Monday-Friday next week. On Monday (3/2) and Friday (3/6), 1 Line trains will single track between Northgate and Shoreline South. 2 Line trains will terminate at Northgate station. After 11pm on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday next week, replacement buses will be used between Northgate and Lynnwood. The 1 Line will continue to operate between Federal Way and Northgate. The 2 Line will run between Downtown Redmond and South Bellevue, and between International District/ Chinatown and Northgate.
Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel Closure
On March 21 and March 22, replacement buses will be used between Capitol Hill and Stadium. The Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) will be closed so Sound Transit crews can replace a defective rail near Pioneer Square. This is the first DSTT closure since the 2 Line began simulated service earlier this month. Sound Transit has not specified how the closure will affect 2 Line service, but we will update this post when we know more.
Service reductions are an unfortunate reality of a growing transit network. It is better for Sound Transit to proactively perform preventive maintenance now rather than wait for something to break.
During the March 21-22 closure, if you want to go from Kirkland to downtown Seattle, you are supposed to rider Metro 255 to UW, go down to Link, ride 1 stop to Capitol Hill, go back up and transfer to a shuttle bus. Probably take an hour. Thank got the 545 still goes to downtown Seattle.
It’s a question of tradeoffs. If the 255 went downtown, then it would take an hour to go Kirkland->UW, every single day, even when Link downtown isn’t closed. It would also run less often, due to the longer route, likely every 30 minutes during the day on weekends, and once per hour in the evening, like the 545 does.
That said, there are a couple of tricks for navigating the closure worth mentioning. You can connect directly between the 255 and route 70 at Campus Parkway to go downtown, bypassing Link entirely. This option is slower than the 545 in general, but route 70 runs more often than the 545 does, so may be faster for a specific trip, if the 545 would require a long wait. And, of course, for anybody with a car, driving to South Bellevue or Mercer Island for the 550 is going to be faster than anything. A park and ride also exists at Evergreen Point Freeway Station, making driving to the 545 an additional option (but the 545 doesn’t run as often as the 550 does, making for some additional wait time, plus Evergreen Point is awkward to access in a car, coming from Kirkland or Redmond).
It would not take an hour. You’d just need to transfer at Yarrow Point or Evergreen Point to 542 or 556. But yeah that definitely sucks considering the frequency of those two routes are not good.
The 255 should stay as is in my opinion since the 545 is more frequent than the 542. The 256 service could be expanded.
Wait what, the 255 doesn’t even go DT anymore? I just realized looking at Metro routes the other day that the 249 (the dogs dinner) has been changed to DART. Eastside bus service just sucks. I mean it sucked when the the buses got kicked out of the bus tunnel but now it really sucks. We’ve got a fancy new train but that’s ST money. Metro, which the eastside money keeps Seattle Transit running has been gutted beyond belief.
Routes 250 and 550 with transfer at BTC?
The smoother they can make everything while they get the hang of interlining, the better. My ride from rainier beach to shoreline south has anecdotally gotten 5-10 minutes longer since westside 2 line service started. I’ve also noticed that quite often, a train is followed by another from the same line, instead of alternating.
Lots to learn, and I’m sure having to get everyone off at CID doesn’t help). Glad they were flexible enough to do this in phases when each part (starter, simulated service) was ready to go, instead of all at once.
Yeah, I have noticed the trains are not very well spaced. There were also issues between Beacon Hill and SoDo the other day. The train stopped for a while (reminded me of New York). This was surprising since the the train was headed south (and thus would not have been delayed by a 2-Line train) so maybe it was just a coincidence.
The trains stop to change operators there between sodo and beacon. It has always been that way. But usually only lasts a minute. Anything longer would be different.
So the defective rail was identified a few days ago but have to wait 3 weeks for it to get fixed? Aren’t the trains moving slower in that section right now bc of it?
I don’t like the fix is happening just a few days before opening. Like other commenters here I want everything ironed out so that we get proper alternating headways with basically 0 delays to both lines.
March 21-22, the 2 line will run between DT Redmond and South Bellevue. It is my understanding that no runs across the bridge until the 27th so they can finish punch list items between SBS and IDS Jct, similar to what occurred prior to the opening of Federal Way.
Yes, 10mph slow order until it is fixed between IDS and midway to Symphony station because of how the ATP track circuits work. Not ideal but overall, it hasn’t affected operations. Adds about 90 seconds from what I’ve noticed. Most of the bottlenecking is happening due to Lynnwood.
I think I am going to write that terminal stations needs to be 3 tracks instead of 2, it would resolve the bulk of the issues. Harder to do with an elevated station though.
HOPEFULLY Tacoma, Alderwood, and Everett will get that treatment to ease delays when things go South.
Can you explain why terminus being only 2 tracks is a problem, please? Not familiar with the issue
In Vancouver BC on the Canada line the branches have termini with single tracking. The branches operate with 3 minute frequency and seems to work for them.
“I think I am going to write that terminal stations needs to be 3 tracks instead of 2, it would resolve the bulk of the issues.”
Because it is the only place in the link system planned to be the end of two lines rather than one, reversing a train will be a potential bottleneck wherever the Snohomish end of the line is.
There are no clear plans how to ease it in the future.
It will be even more of a challenge if one line reverses at Mariner while the other continues to Everett. That will require careful slotting of trains in between other trains . And the vicinity of the planned Mariner Station is probably the place where right of way for a third or even a fourth track will be more difficult and expensive.
I’ve long pointed out that it is better operationally for the two lines to branch to end at different places/ stations . That would give more time to reverse a train, with the trains at the end stations able to board riders during the driver reversing process.
This basic operational limitation has not been discussed in the Everett Link Extension planning. It should have been explained from the beginning. Too many people are involved in its planning process that do not understand basic train operations.
I am expecting timely train reversals at Lynnwood to be a recurring problem for the next several years. The question will become if ST staff will ever explain the root cause to the Snohomish delegation or not — and will staff recommend track changes to the Everett Link Extension layout because of it or not. It may take regular disruptions of service before the stakeholders eventually get that the track layout is the source of this coming reliability issue .
The ultimate technological solution will likely be driverless trains that can reverse without a driver on board. But ST hasn’t discussed how to get to driverless trains either.
“In Vancouver BC on the Canada line the branches have termini with single tracking. The branches operate with 3 minute frequency and seems to work for them.”
As I said above, driverless trains are a technological solution to the problem. That’s what SkyTrain in Vancouver has and Link doesn’t have (and is still not planning to have).
The train reversals have had time issues even before the 2 Line. Sound Transit is incapable of even basic logic that has already been worked out by numerous transit systems around the world. This is the problem with zero privatization, zero research or innovation effort…. You are reinventing the wheel at a higher cost for no reason. Don’t think we’ll ever see automation in our lifetime either.
“This basic operational limitation has not been discussed in the Everett Link Extension planning. It should have been explained from the beginning.”
A lot of things about Link projects are like that.
“Can you explain why terminus being only 2 tracks is a problem, please? Not familiar with the issue”
If a train gets delayed, the 4 minute headways don’t leave a lot of room for error. You can wind up with the station fully occupied by trains and not have a place for a third train that’s arriving.
SkyTrain has a couple of strategies. Some of their terminal stations have track beyond the station, so if this gets to be a problem they just run a terminating train beyond the station. This effectively gives those stations four tracks of layover space: two at the platform, and two beyond the platform.
It’s a little more difficult for Link to do this because the driver needs to change ends. Since SkyTrain operates without an operator in the train most of the time, it’s just a matter of the control center changing the direction once the train is at the end of the track. Reversing is a two second operation rather than two minutes or so.
If you look closely at Waterfront Station in the map areal view, you can see the Expo line actually has storage for about 4 trains (two on each track) past the actual station platform. It’s hard to tell in this view as they’re sandwiched between the freight yard and the Pacific Cosst passenger train that’s also laying over, but the SkyTrain stub end tracks are there. I put this pin directly on top of a SkyTrain that’s on one of these layover stub ends:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RrcJX2Yppvfuy537A?g_st=ic
This would be the equivalent of giving Link a 4 track station at Lynnwood with a full crossover both north and south of the station (which the Expo line appears to have) in terms of layover flexibility and the ability to work around trains that may not be 100% on time.
Yep, the way the ST board that runs this Sh*t show is the problem. Change that fundamentally flawed system and maybe there’s a chance things change… maybe for the better.
There’s a lot of whining in this thread about ST not going for a Spanish solution in Mariner when they’re currently planing to do exactly that:
“When Link light rail service is running to downtown Everett, two light rail lines will service the Mariner station. The station will have two platforms to accommodate the different lines, and therefore will be wider than other stations in the project.”
https://everettlink.participate.online/alternatives/mariner.html
“There’s a lot of whining in this thread about ST not going for a Spanish solution in Mariner when they’re currently planing to do exactly that:”
It’s good that ST is planning to reverse a line in the station.
It doesn’t however sound like the Spanish solution. That’s a setup where both sides of a train open at once to separate platforms. Seattle’s example is the Seattle Center monorail station. It’s usually done not for line terminals, but instead is used for busy stations where lots of riders are getting on and off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_solution
It sounds like ST is instead planning either three or four tracks in the station. The description is still fuzzy and it would be better to react to a diagram. But at least they are thinking about it.
And a two platform design is better than the three platform design at the planned SODO station expansion. Having three platforms is not only excessive with elevators and escalators in three places rather than two, but it also prevents cross platform transfers at SODO. With thousands expected to transfer there, forcing riders to go up and back down is going to create backups of people waiting to use those devices. And it’s an extra hassle for people with disabilities or carrying something like a bicycle, suitcase or stroller.
Al, I’m aware of what the Spanish solution is. I seem to recall ST mentioning it by name in reference to their Mariner plans, though I’ll concede that the description I provided doesn’t make it obvious.
For that matter, though, I don’t think the true Spanish solution is necessary at suburban termini. The constraint on headways will be physically reversing trains on tracks, not offboarding passengers.
It doesn’t however sound like the Spanish solution. That’s a setup where both sides of a train open at once to separate platforms.
OK, I’m going to picky about something picky (and not really the main point). But with the Spanish Solution the doors don’t all open at once. One set of doors open on one side where people are expected to exit. Then, a moment later, the other doors open on the other side and people are supposed to enter. This is common in airports. Riders who aren’t used to the system intuitively head towards the doors that opened first instead of having to be told not to go that way. This approach only makes sense at really busy stations where everyone is expected to get off the train and a lot of people are expected to get on. It happens in Vancouver because the trains quickly reverse direction. I don’t think it will happen here because as Catherine (and others) have mentioned, the restraint is turning around the train. The drivers have to switch cabs. The trains have to move to the other track.
What will be different about Mariner is that sometimes the train continues going that direction, sometimes it just ends there. This can be confusing to riders. It is what is happening in CID as we speak. The point Catherine made is that ST will handle it just fine. There will be platforms to handle the two lines. I assume what that means is that there will be northbound platform for those on the train that ends there and a northbound platform for trains that continue. That way riders who are trying to get from Mariner to Everett stand by the latter. There will be one platform southbound because it doesn’t really matter whether the train starts there or started in Everett.
Regardless of the particulars, Catherine is right. There are a lot of things to worry about when it comes to Sound Transit. This isn’t one of them.
@ Catherine:
First of all, thanks for the hyperlink to the survey!
Yes I agree that the typical Spanish solution isn’t required for the volume of activity at Mariner. As I said, it’s usually used to ease crowd control for heavy boarding loads.
I could see how ST could put a third, middle track where northbound platform riders get off on one side of the train — and later the doors open for southbound platform riders to board. That would effectively be the “Spanish solution” platform design approach. That sounds like what ST is planning to build there.
@ Ross: The thread has been about reversing trains in a timely manner. The main difference between Lynnwood and Mariner would be that Lynnwood reverses both lines while Mariner reverses only one. However, reversing a train in the middle of a line takes time given Link equipment. As others have noted and as ST is acknowledging by already stating the need for a wider station, train reversing cannot be ignored in that station design. Without at least three tracks at or near the Mariner station (and maybe four) it would be an operational problem. That’s because without a third track, any train arriving from Everett would have to fully pause until the other train undertook revering and that takes a few precious minutes.
Had Lynnwood been built with three tracks and two platforms the reversal challenge there would a heck of a lot easier. Lynnwood is also hampered by there being no crossover switches until well south of the station (about 222nd St). Is ST now using the crossover tracks just north of the Lynnwood station? I haven’t needed to ride Link up there to observe.
Most importantly, it shows that ST is okaying attention to operational track needs in future extension planning. And that’s a good thing.
The thread has been about reversing trains in a timely manner.
Yes, and as Catherine has pointed out, Sound Transit is aware of the issue and has it covered. There is nothing to worry about.
Then we got bogged down with the whole “Spanish Solution” idea.
hi just to expand on that a bit more. what sound transit needs is there to be
3 tracks, and also importantly the 3rd track also allows passengers to get off the train as well.
Currently sound transit does have a 3rd pocket track at northgate and lynnwood etc… that works fine when it is the terminus.
However the problem is that it is not convenient or easy for sound transit to actually turn trains halfway for a route because they need to clean the train and do the security check. Aka when the trains head to mariner and turn around while other trains need to continue north to everett.
Another replacement rail? They literally just did that recently. Imagine if the crazy ideas of jamming 3 lines in that tunnel were ever a reality. Build more single points of failure and stress the already likely flawed design of that tunnel.
Or worse yet, a new downtown tunnel. They can’t seem to maintain what track they have but they want to have more? It would be one thing if the new tunnel added some new stations that were worth transferring to, but they wouldn’t have that, either.
Every time Sound Transit performs “maintenance” work, I can’t help but wonder how the train agencies in Japan would handle the same situation. Or, would they ever get themselves in a situation like that? I know this won’t get us anywhere, but the longer I’ve been using the Link, the more I’ve come to wonder why Sound Transit runs into issues after issues managing the Link, as if they’d never learned any lessons from the past.
I suspect that it’s a structural problem.
1. ST relies on Metro staff for more than drivers.
2. ST does not hire enough management with maintenance experience elsewhere.
3. When repairs are needed there does not seem to be much pushback about the time needed to fix things — or the best way to keep trains running smoothly while dealing with the situation. So things that should take several overnight hours end up taking days.
4. I wonder if there is any incentive for any staff — especially those hired by Metro — to keep trains reliably running. It feels like everyone is doing their individual job but there’s no overall mission to serve the riders better.
I think that the eventual solution is to change the way the operation is staffed and managed. Having one transit operator hire politicos as management while relying on a different agency to provide staff is to me a really stupid approach to management.
It made some sense up until the Link extensions started to get built and opened these past five years. That’s no longer the case as I see it.
The driver shortage is also a maintenance worker shortage, and since the pandemic the agencies sometimes wait months for supply-chain parts to arrive.
But a non-American agency would have installed state-of-the-art signals years ago, and would be ordering driverless trains with open gangways rather than a 30-year-old generation of technology. It all comes down to priorities again: if ST prioritized the right things, it would have a better network, we’d get industry-standard things sooner, and more passengers would find Link meets their mobility needs and would be more satisfied customers.
It’s absolutely wild that SoundTransit brags that they haven’t straight up closed down the 1 line since earlier this same month. I’ve stopped using the Link entirely at this point and I used to use it almost daily from federal way up to Northgate. The sheer amount of unannounced close lures and bus replacements was staggering and I missed every ETA from late December through last week. I now use the rounded from South Tacoma and then ride my bike of skateboard the rest of the way, sometimes grabbing the link north from UW, cause who doesn’t love unusable transit in the middle of the night after hours of work, public skate, and drop in hockey when no service interruptions were supposed to happen?
My RTA tax on my car is nearly $2000 per year when my county didn’t even vote for it (nor is ~$2000 in any way shape or for 1% the value of a $29k car). This is the service it’s paying for. A link that closes at random and a Sounder that has to sit at a standstill for a full hour multiple times the last 3 weeks cause BNSF is continuously violating their contract with SoundTransit running train after train during the Sounder’s exclusive schedule and nobody does anything about it.
I don’t remotely understand how any of y’all tolerate this. This is abysmal by 2nd and 3rd world country standards, much less one of the most important cities in the US.
I agree. The public transit here is abysmal. Link is slow and useless. Not to mention full of vagrants and unhygienic people that adds on to the mess. We hardly have any good express transit here. Pay extra and still get stuck in the same traffic as cars. Delete service outside of Seattle because of “low ridership” that is caused by the abysmal quality of the transit itself.
Sorry, what the hell are you guys talking about? Hardly any good express transit here? Almost every suburb has a highway running express bus that serves it. Is it “good”? I certainly think so, but that’s relative.
Yes, there are issues. ST sucks at maintenance, and emergency repairs are somewhat common on Link. Others in this thread have talked about why that may be.
But I feel like you have never lived in a place where transit is actually bad if you’re saying stuff like this. The median US city don’t even serve suburban areas outside of rush hour, if they do at all. ST has issues, but you can also ride an express bus from Lakewood to Seattle from 5 am to midnight. It’d be better if that was 24/7, it’d be better if that was every 15 minutes all day. In Milwaukee, there is no usable service outside of Milwaukee County. You literally can’t ride transit to two of the suburban counties, since they only offer paratransit. The other one has miserable hourly at best local service only. Seattle runs all day express bus service to most suburbs.
Is service bad relative to the “2nd and 3rd world”? I mean first of all, that’s a term relating to sides in the Cold War, so yeah there’s probably better transit in Moscow and Warsaw (2nd world) or Delhi and Santiago (3rd world) but the reasons are varied. I think it’s a little bit of hubris to conceptualize Seattle as more important than any other major city in the world, just because it’s a major city in the US.
I can use transit to fulfill 100% of my daily needs, and generally do (sometimes I ride my bike). Sure, I’m in Seattle, but I chose where I lived when I moved here specifically because of transit availability. But I also briefly lived in Issaquah, and found that while relying on the 554 was obnoxious late at night, I still in fact could (and did) make it work okay.
I agree about the express bus service. It is probably the thing we do best. I think ST could do better (without spending more money) but what we have in terms of *regional* transportation is pretty damn good. Someone can take a ferry from Whidbey Island (not a very densely populated area) every half hour to Mukilteo (also not dense). They can then take a bus, timed with the ferry that will quickly get them to the main metro serving Seattle. Despite being in the middle of suburbia (a long ways from the urban core) the train will arrive every five minutes there. It can get you into the city in no time. Sure, it would be better if the train had more stops inside the city, but from a *regional* standpoint it is excellent. The same is true for Everett. They run express buses every fifteen minutes all day long that connect (at the same place) to the same metro line (running every five minutes). Likewise going south. We have express buses to Tacoma all day long. These run right through Downtown Seattle from Downtown Tacoma. Yes, we were promised 15-minute frequency, but half hour service (midday) isn’t bad for a trip that far. (It runs more often during rush hour — both directions.)
You also have a commuter train which is great if you can time it.
No, it isn’t as good as say, Chicago, but we aren’t Chicago. We are pretty small and our suburbs are tiny and sprawling. Even the other cities are pretty small and sprawling. Everyone I’ve ever talked to likes Tacoma. People who used to live there, people who visit — they all say the same thing — it has character. But it lacks density. Most of the areas surrounding Seattle lack density. This makes them very difficult to serve with transit and yet from a regional standpoint we do fairly well. I would say the biggest improvement that could be made is to simply change the HOV lanes. Change them from HOV-2 to HOV-3. That would make the buses faster and more reliable. This would save the agencies money which they could use to run those buses more often (where appropriate). But overall we do well for a lot of the longer trips.
It is only when you start looking at really long trips (e. g. Seattle to Olympia or Bellingham) that we start falling short. Private bus companies typically serve areas like this but because there isn’t a lot of demand, they don’t serve them well. The state could chip in, but it would be a big subsidy.
The biggest problem we have though, is for shorter trips. Our metro isn’t that bad but it isn’t that good, either. It lacks stations and lines. It doesn’t complement the bus system very well. ST3 won’t help very much (despite the enormous cost). The bus system itself is poorly funded and poorly designed. In other words, the main bus system* (that still carries most of the riders) doesn’t have much money and they spend it poorly.
*The main bus system in the region is called King County Metro, which is confusing, since they don’t operate the metro. Sound Transit operates the metro, which happens to be light rail, so they call it that (not a subway or metro). If you are from somewhere else it has to be quite confusing.
“Almost every suburb has a highway running express bus that serves it. Is it “good”? ”
Your suburbs, not “every”. Issaquah has outstanding service despite being a smaller suburb than many other cities in the area.
It takes 2+ hours to move by transit around the region in South King County (even along straightforward corridors like I-405, SR 169, and SR 167) and even our peak hour service still takes well over an hour for a comparable drive of 20-30 mins (45-50 mins in the worst traffic). It is very much abysmal compared to a civilized transportation system found in many first world countries. Local service is not good enough to cover all ends and offer frequent connections to nearby Link, Sounder and Express services.
While the county is large, the areas with population are pretty visible on a density map. Yet they’re not covered or even close to covered especially south of I-90.
We also run jokes they can’t even be called “express”
For example let’s go to Issaquah. What is the 556 even for? I’m not sure how UW commuters from Issaquah can even put up with it. An easily 30-35 min ride turned into an hour long mess that could have easily used the freeway to skip traffic. Even the 271 can compete with it to Eastgate… Taking entirely local roads. This is a state of the art express bus you seem to praise.
And same goes with the 560, 566 and other Metro express buses like 102, 150, 256, etc. that are ridiculously slow and don’t act as an express that they’re advertised to be. If we were serious about express service: we’d reduce stops and focus on more distance traveled per minute, add red paint / TSP, and make better frequent local feeder connections.
Instead we’re deleting the already shockingly bad express bus service to make people take slower local connections just to hop on Link which people on here say is not supposed to be used for express/commute service yet want to force us to ride it as a commuter service.
Also for some reason so many express routes to Tacoma and Federal Way. If that pulls ridership, it’s because those are decent routes with outstanding service. That kind of service needs to be brought to the entire county to all major cities, and advertised as a better travel option to people. And working with employers to promote transit usage and reduce parking.
I would agree that the region is rife with examples of great express bus services. The region also has built and is using an amazing number of express bus freeway ramps — features not common in other American metro areas even with lots of transit.
The challenge is that it’s less and less of a transit market. Many metros have seen a fall of demand for one-way peak express services that workers use. Remote work — either part or full time — is a thing that has replaced many traditional jobs within office buildings. Because drivers and vehicles end up being needed just for a few hours and usually just in one direction each peak, it’s also more costly to provide the service. Over time, transit agencies will be unable to sustain them at the levels of the past.
So while I applaud the region for doing express buses well before now, I see the future being different. All-day service used for more than trips to and from an office job will seemingly be a better approach in the future.
The expansion of Link and the creation of Stride are laying the foundation of this paradigm shift to frequent, all-day service. However, both seem to me to be still too commuter focused when it comes to the stops/ stations . From planning Link stations mostly at current park and rides outside of Seattle to Stride skipping so many non-work activity hubs like Alderwood, Factoria, SeaTac and SouthCenter, our current advanced planning still seems too focused on this commuter travel market. Over time, I think that we will see investments to correct this — and I hope it happens before the services get considered failures due to them being too focused on white-collar commuting and thus more prone to disappointing ridership.
Also we used to have the express buses. So many of them actually, serving a variety of neighborhoods even in the farthest suburbs of King County. But Metro keeps deleting them every year. Now we’re down to very few left and those are being considered for deletion so we can take the “Link” into Seattle (a 40-50 min slugfest from Lynnwood or Angle Lake) on top of whatever local bus mess you have to deal with. At least Stride will make things a lot better but we still have a long way to go in restoring the service of the past and Metro doesn’t seem interested in doing so.
“However, both seem to me to be still too commuter focused when it comes to the stops/ stations”
I welcome all day and non commuter focused options. But commuting is the bulk of traffic and congestion woes. That should be our priority to transform. Unfortunately we’re going backwards and forcing more people to their cars. The traffic effects are so bad that they ripple to all day – even off peak. It has to be fixed.
“Remote work — either part or full time — is a thing that has replaced many traditional jobs within office buildings.”
The current traffic situation and return to office mandates says otherwise. People are traveling far and all day now. People need to go to school, work, etc. Not everyone works a cushy computer job and can ride their bus all day in Seattle and drink lattes. Low income people rely on fast transit to take them to work every day and we’re making these options harder for them by forcing them to lose sleep and time riding the bus and Link for hours a day. Not everyone can afford living in Seattle and Bellevue.
Ridership from suburbs dropped off due to the pandemic. The pandemic is over. The reason ridership hasn’t restored is due to poor service and a lack of trust in the safety/cleanliness/speed of our public transit.
Ross – I think Seattle has generally better non-peak hour suburban transit than Chicago. Outside of Metra (which is still very peak commute oriented), suburban transit in Chicago is rough. Pace is much worse than Community Transit, and maybe worse than Pierce too. I think this is partially geography – Chicago is sprawly in a way that Seattle isn’t, and our linear structure makes transit much easier to run effectively. Suburb-to-suburb transit in Chicago is almost comically bad, so many of the first suggestions for suburbs on adjacent Metra lines is “take the train all the way downtown, then transfer to go back out”, and it takes 2.5 hours for a 20 minute drive.
SKR – Yes, South King has broadly worse transit service than many other parts of the region, but some of this is just funding/geography. And express/regional service is middling, especially when Sounder isn’t running (particularly for Kent). But there are still buses coming every 15 minutes off peak, and trips can be made. You complain about it being twice as long as driving, I’m still accustomed to literally not having an option.
The 150 isn’t fully an express for Kent, since it goes the slow way via Southcenter, but it absolutely is an express service relative to every other metro area I’ve ever lived. I took a cedar chest home on the 150 from the Habitat for Humanity Southcenter and was impressed both by how busy and fast it was. Definitely slower than driving, but in other parts of the country the 150 literally does not exist.
Yes, we need better service. Of course we do. But it’s intellectually dishonest to say what we currently have is somehow shamefully bad. I’d take Seattle’s transit over Chicago’s. It’s not continental Europe, but it’s definitely usable. And for what it’s worth, Link from Lynnwood is 30 minutes with 5 minute frequency. For a suburb 15 miles from downtown, that is better service than you’d find in London – it’s 50 minutes on the Metropolitan line from Uxbridge to the City, and it only comes every 10 minutes. There are issues in the south end with speed, but the 20 miles from Federal Way in 50 minutes is on par with most London Underground lines. I obviously think the Underground is better than Link, but I think that may be useful context.
American transit planning is far too commute oriented, and has been for generations – despite the fact that only like 15% of trips are commutes. Better all day service matters a lot more for people who live without a car than another peak-oriented service to woo 5 commuters.
“ Low income people rely on fast transit to take them to work every day and we’re making these options harder for them by forcing them to lose sleep and time riding the bus and Link for hours a day.”
Our express transit system in past decades has been mostly focused on white-collar jobs in Downtown office buildings. Other commuter markets were always pushed to the side, even in the heyday of express buses.
Yeah Link may make a trip 10 minutes longer because of transferring and slower transit vehicles, but at least more white-collar people can now stay later downtown for after-work socializing or dinner. And non-white collar people working in Downtown have more options for transit during non-peak hours than they did.
I’m old enough to remember offices having large pools of secretaries and a printing room staff that all worked standard office hours and reliably too transit to and from work. Those kinds of low-paying jobs have been reduced considerably — leading to the structural decrease in transit demand.
This mindset is why traffic will keep getting worse and worse. We don’t need door to door peak service like the past, but we need better express options from all major transit centers at minimum, with local connections to each transit center. That doesn’t exist.
“Yeah Link may make a trip 10 minutes longer because of transferring and slower transit vehicles”
That is a gross understatement. Trips will definitely be 30+ min longer. Many people value time. That’s why most people drive. But transit can be faster than driving but we actively choose not to do that. We don’t need to even add service hours. It just requires reducing the frequency of high stop buses, and interlining it with low frequency express runs with fewer stops +transfer, adding red paint / traffic signal priority. Cars are faster because buses have to stop at stops. But if buses don’t have to stop at traffic lights or long queues, it defeats a car in any scenario. The time to transfer is equal to the time to park.
There was heavy backpack when the 311 got deleted and replaced with the 256. A once highly used route has been massacred and sent more people back to their cars.
*backlash
“another peak-oriented service to woo 5 commuters.”
Hundreds of people from every neighborhood commute by car. Look at how crowded the roads are even in random tiny neighborhoods. Why do you think only few take the bus? Why do schools use school buses instead of all day reliable metro service for after school activities?
“ hours. It just requires reducing the frequency of high stop buses, and interlining it with low frequency express runs with fewer stops +transfer, adding red paint / traffic signal priority.”
What you seem to want is pretty much in line with the development of RapidRide corridors. If you have issues with the RapidRide program, that’s where I would suggest focusing your concerns. Generic griping does not get to solutions.
Also, Seattle residents pay extra taxes at the city level to augment our bus frequency. Without those funds, service in Seattle would be much less frequent.
South King County cities have the option to do that too. Maybe they should. But implying that Metro is playing favorites with Seattle service is disregarding that Seattle residents pay for it being better.
When did I say it should be on par with Seattle service? In fact, Seattle service is not nearly as good as it should be.
Rapid Ride shouldn’t be something special, it should be the standard. That’s what I’m trying to say. And we shouldn’t delete express bus routes because Link exists. If we’re struggling with operator shortages maybe we should’ve invested into cheap automation of Link, so we can keep them on driving the buses.
“South King County cities have the option to do that too. Maybe they should.”
Do North King County cities pay extra? Because they seem have way better east-west travel and higher frequency options, despite lower populations in many of the communities there.
@South King Resident
Snohomish (outside of Everett) and Seattle pay an additional tax to run more service. Shoreline is a lucky beneficiary, since it’s sandwiched between the two. Outside of that I don’t believe any north King jurisdictions have particularly standout service.
You’re joking, or being extremely disingenuous, right?
https://projects.seattletimes.com/2023/local/tl-busstops-datastory/
Scroll down to the service/ridership map..north King is almost filled. South King looks empty in comparison. It’s a blatant mistreatment and under service of South King County. Renton/Kent are one of the most populous cities in the state, with more minorities and low income car free riders.
I’d also like to believe that Renton and Kent contribute to a very large share of SOV traffic on I-5 and I-405.
South King Resident, I think someone could present you with facts showing that south of Seattle receives transit service proportional, or greater, to its population, and you still wouldn’t believe it. I think your regional victim mentality is a permanent part of who you are.
“It is very much abysmal compared to a civilized transportation system found in many first world countries.”
Not really, our regional bus service is no different to the service I’ve ridden in Italy, France, Beligum, Denmark, or the Netherlands. I get a lot of people here are predisposed to “America doesn’t do anything good” when KC Metro/Sound Transit actually gets a lot of good service for the tax revenues and fares it pulls in. We’re actually one of the few regions in the US to do regional bus transit well and it not feel half baked.
@South King Resident
Are you joking lol? I honestly don’t understand this victim mentality. LFP, Kenmore, Bothell have a single (literally one!) frequent route shared between three cities. Honestly it might only have frequent service because it spends the majority of its time in Seattle.
Meanwhile huge swaths of North King are served by hourly coverage routes like the 222, 225, 230, or 231. Woodinville doesn’t have a single frequent route in the entire city.
This is the service you are jealous of?
Former south king resident here lives in Seattle, home of five minute link service. While Seattle takes the cake for bus service, South king county definitely doesn’t have things rough at night. There’s two rapidrides, including one with frequent 10 minute service all day, and a number of 15 minute headway routes. Most routes are 30 minutes or better and a few that aren’t will be this fall.
On the eastside a lot of routes are lucky if they have 30 minute headways after the cuts in 2023.
All south king lost was the 121 and the 190 and that would have been gutted this fall anyway. And they’re getting the 121 back this fall, including reverse peak trips.
It takes 2+ hours to move by transit around the region in South King County (even along straightforward corridors like I-405, SR 169, and SR 167)
That is because it is so physically large, spread out and low density. Not low enough that you can just ignore it, but low enough that it is extremely expensive to serve. Take Auburn for example. Auburn has over 85,000 people within the city limits but you wouldn’t guess that if you looked at the downtown area. It looks like a city of maybe ten thousand. But then it sprawls in every direction. Not only that, but every aspect of living is spread out — not just housing. Employment, education, entertainment, shopping, hospital care — it is all spread out in the greater region. Even the closest community college (Green River) has two campuses, five miles apart. Serving an area like this is bound to be very expensive and get you very few riders.
This all before you even consider going to a bigger, denser (and far more distant) area like Tacoma or Seattle. This is just a fundamentally poor place for transit. There is no easy way to fix it. You either spend way more money *per rider* than anywhere in Europe (let alone North America) or you deal with mediocre service. Of course there are ways that the various agencies can improve things but overall, regional transit is quite good while local transit sucks. This is because Sound Transit is willing to throw money at regional transit while Metro has less money (and a higher standard for performance).
Look, I’m pretty sure that both of us want a “Sounder shadow” — a route that connects the various communities when Sounder isn’t running. But you are delusional if you think that will ever come close to the type of performance found on buses like the 168, let alone a bus in Seattle. Even the best regional bus route is extremely expensive per rider. They basically subsidize the hell out of those routes. A Sounder shadow — which again, I think we should build — would not be used by that many people and yet it would be expensive to run.
I think Seattle has generally better non-peak hour suburban transit than Chicago. Outside of Metra
Yeah, that makes sense. I was thinking about Metra. It is just a much better commuter rail line then we could ever build. But other than that, it doesn’t surprise me that suburban transit in Chicago isn’t that good, for the reason you mentioned. People are quick to assume that West Coast cities sprawl like crazy. And they do (especially compared to older East Coast cities). But we often don’t sprawl as much as some Midwest cities because of the physical barriers. You run into the mountains and while there is some development there, it isn’t like the Midwest.
It also explains why the South Sound is so hard to serve with transit. It had more room to sprawl and it did. Things narrow as you get north, with only the handful of highways heading east. Things spread out as you go south.
The reason ridership hasn’t restored is due to poor service and a lack of trust in the safety/cleanliness/speed of our public transit.
And a commitment to “equity” that you seem to embrace. There are plenty of routes that get extra service based on equity metrics. I think those metrics are faulty. They focus on proportions. There is some reasoning for this. Areas that are considered “the ghetto” have often been unrepresented in the past and should have good service to compensate for their lack of political power. Except that isn’t the biggest problem in the region. Places like the Central Area and Rainier Valley have a lot more white people but not that many people have color have moved out. This means that it could perform very well *and* serve a lot of low-income/people of color.
Consider this example. You have a route that is only 10% low income but picks up 40 riders an hour. You also have an area that is 20% low income but picks up 10 riders an hour. If you go by the proportion of low-income riders (and Metro does) then the second area should have extra service. But if you are trying to serve the *most* low-income riders for your service dollar, then you go with the first. In other words, you run buses like the 8 a lot more even though it picks up a lot of rich folks. Of course we also have routes like the RapidRide A and E which both perform very well an pick up plenty of low-income riders.
Outside of Seattle, South King County routes perform the best. It seems to be the consensus here that SK has bad ridership… That’s opposite of the situation. Meanwhile the buses up north are empty. The 203 and 269 is empty every time I see it even during peak. Of course those kinds of routes don’t have night service.
Rapid Ride A and F perform very well. And the 160 is a strong route soon to become Rapid Ride I deservedly. Those routes serve useful corridors but there are many missed riders in adjacent streets and neighborhoods/apartments. That’s why there needs to be more coverage instead of trying to make routes make needless deviations and extra stops.
If you look at the ridership, SK is utilizing what little they have really well. Hopefully our local politicians start emphasizing transit and add a tax to improve the service. People here use it and rely on it. Even if SK is “spread out” there are well defined corridors of population density, and many of them are flat out missing bus lines that could easily be added. Outside of NIMBY areas or highly unpopulated areas like Woodinville and the far stretches of Bothell, every major street in the north side of the county has a bus route. That’s not true down here.
Foamers on here may have their own opinions about their “high density” 10 min bus trips to travel 2 blocks, but take it from actual riders and people.
https://www.theurbanist.org/2023/04/03/fast-frequent-transit-would-drive-ridership-rebound-commute-seattle-survey-shows/
Fast, Frequent Transit Would Drive Ridership Rebound, Commute Seattle Survey Shows
Commute Seattle conducted a broad survey published in early 2023 that found that riders reported that transit being fast, frequent, and reliable is the biggest thing impacting their decision to ride.