Reminders & Updates:
- Simulated Service of the 2 Line west of Lake Washington has resumed. Northerners rejoice. The Crosslake Connection of the 2 Line opens on March 28.
- Downtown Transit Tunnel Closure Mar. 21-22: Link service between Capitol Hill to Stadium will be replaced by shuttle buses next weekend for scheduled maintenance.
Local News:
- No transit measure for King County in 2026, but the Council will likely implement a 0.1% sales tax hike for roadway maintenance, which currently has no funding (The Urbanist).
- A state bill directly authorizing 75-year bonds is dead, but an amendment to the state’s transportation funding policies might give Sound Transit the authority it’s hoping for (The Urbanist).
- Bellevue wants to know if residents agree with dropping speed limits 5 mph on most city streets (Seattle Bike Blog).
- Sound Transit should leverage the vast popularity of light rail expansion to get laws and policies changed before cutting ST3 projects (Op-Ed; The Urbanist).
- King County Metro recorded over 334,000 boardings on Feb. 11, the Seahawks Victory Parade day (Metro Matters). Metro reports last February’s average weekday served about 265,000 boardings.
- SDOT is once again accepting applications to volunteer on the various advisory boards (SDOT Blog)
- Seattle Mayor Wilson has proposed legislation to speed up construction of tiny house villages, an early step toward delivering on a campaign promise for 1,000 new shelters in 2026 (The Seattle Times, $). Erica C. Barnett reflects on the consequences of abandoning “Housing First” (PubliCola).
Other News and Commentary:
- New trolleybuses are arriving in Vancouver, BC (Urban Transport Magazine).
- Why has the USA mostly built light rail while China builds subways? (Reece Martin)
- Global transit advocacy group explores how cables cars and gondolas have been implemented in France (UIPT News).
- A former deputy commissioner at the NYC Dept. of Homeless Services argues that a mix of permanent supportive housing and rental assistance is the only real solution (New York Times, gift link)
- The trouble with QUIMBY(“Quality Urbanism In My Backyard”) and a defense of QUIMBY (Planetizen)
- Gas prices surge as the USA goes to war in the Middle East, again, interrupting the global supply of petroleum (The Seattle Times, $). Continued transition to electric transit is good, but Washington needs a statewide electricity transmission authority to build necessary infrastructure (editorial, Seattle Times, $).
- A federal judge ruling last week preserves NYC’s congestion pricing against Federal meddling; experts say remaining lawsuits against the tolls are likely to fail (The New York Times, gift link)
- The death of the 5-day office commute means BART needs new revenue beyond its foundational commuter-oriented fares, or else it faces total collapse (The New York Times, gift link).
This is an Open Thread. Comments may relate to any transit or land use oriented topic. Uncivil comments will be moderated.
ST managed to avoid any large events at Climate Pledge Arena for September 21-22.
But the handling of crowds going to and from Pacific Northwest Ballet (McCaw Hall at Seattle Center, with lots of patrons used to taking the monorail from and to Westlake) and Alvin Ailey Dance Theater (at the Paramount Theatre) will likely see surges of riders being directed to the Westlake shuttle stop.
The largest surge will be before and after their 7:30 Saturday performances. The Sunday matinee performances start an hour apart. PNB also has a Saturday matinee performance.
Messaging can do a lot of the work, like sending out a press release in addition to the alerts, encouraging dance fans to arrive early (which may also prompt some to consider the earlier available performances that have not sold out), and pointing out the other available Metro routes.
Signage and staff at stations should not be shy about pointing out the other Metro routes to and from Capitol Hill.
But even with good messaging, surging shuttles between Capitol Hill and Westlake will likely be needed, particularly for the Saturday night event overlap, and particularly getting fans *to* the events on time.
The events themselves should be prepared with their own patience, to start late. Just don’t announce any plan to start late.
March 21-22, not September. Doh!
Speaking of Seattle Center, one thing I’ve always wished for, that will probably never happen, is a bus connecting it to the U district via the more direct Eastlake-Fairview route, rather than the roundabout path through Interbay and Fremont that the 32 uses. Perhaps this bus could even continue down Broad and serve the waterfront and ferry terminal.
The problem, of course, is that there is no way to pay for it without taking service away from existing routes, and a large chunk of the service would duplicate the 70, on its Eastlake to downtown route, and such a route cannot replace the 70 because you still have to connect Eastlake to SLU and downtown.
If such a route existed, it would make it lot easier to get to Seattle Center events from a lot of neighborhoods, including Eastlake, the U district, and any non-Link corridors with buses to the U-district. But, I could see such a route scoring poorly in the equity metrics, as most Seattle Center events are expensive enough that anyone attending them can easily afford parking or Uber, and the rent at homes that would be served along the way is not cheap.
Anyway, one can dream.
One thing I’ve always wished for, that will probably never happen, is a bus connecting it to the U district via the more direct Eastlake-Fairview route, rather than the roundabout path through Interbay and Fremont that the 32 uses.
I know a planner who has suggested a UW to Uptown express. It hasn’t gone anywhere. I think the best plan in the near future is a faster (and more frequent) 8 along with the 70 (and future J Line). This would also work with a future Boren/SLU/Roy* route. Thus you would have two ways to connect to the J Line if you are at Queen Anne & Mercer. Of course if you are right in the Seattle Center then the monorail/Link combination is probably the best bet. That is a fair amount of backtracking but given the speed and frequency that might be the best option.
*Theoretically the bus could go on Mercer but I think Roy would be better.
A faster or more frequent 8 would help, but it’s not really a substitute. The issue is, it’s not just the transfer, but the combination of the transfer overhead, out of the way travel, and walking further, on top of Denny being slow and the 8 not being frequent at the times that evening events typically end. In practice, the best option ends up being to just take the 70 to Roy and walk a mile, but the transit system should be able to do better than that.
Yes, I get that Seattle has a ton of unmet transit needs, and that this one is not highest on the priority list, but it is also true that a good transit should be well funded enough for routes like this to be above the cut line.
There is also a separate issue that it’s not easy to get there through increased taxes, as taxes for transit are already quite high. We need a structural way to dramatically reduce operating costs, but it’s not clear how to do that. Maybe, someday, it will become possible through bus automation, although I’m skeptical. I think, in practice, taxis, personal cars, and delivery trucks will get automated long before buses do, as any attempt to automate buses will be strenuously opposed by driver unions, disability advocates, etc.
UW to Uptown is like 25 minutes on the Link-Monorail trip. A direct local bus wouldn’t make the trip any faster.
Per capita spending on transit in Seattle metro is like $700 a year, which is high for the US but pitifully low in international terms. The issue isn’t really that taxes are too high, it’s more that the taxes that pay for transit in WA are regressive
The issue isn’t really that taxes are too high, it’s more that the taxes that pay for transit in WA are regressive
And even then the taxes are too low. Scandinavian countries have a Value Added Tax which is quite similar to a sales tax. It is around 25%. This is on top of income taxes. Basically they have high taxes (across the board) and a lot of people are better off.
asdf2,
yes, this was discussed in the late 1990s. Route 8 was first implemented in 1995; its frequency was improved in 2009. in fall 1998, Route 74 was extended to Uptown via Aurora Avenue North. During the I-695 crisis, the extension was deleted. In 2000, Metro got more sales tax authority to replace part of the MVET revenue stream. The connection was restored but via Route 30 via Fremont and Westlake. The SDOT Mercer Street project destroyed the Route 30 pathway and the Route 8 reliability by congesting Denny Way. in fall 2012, around the D Line and Route 40, Route 32 was provided between Uptown and the U District. Route 32 is a slower direct connection than its predecessors, routes 74 and 30. With Capitol Hill Link station and Route 8, there may be a better one-transfer connection with Wilson BAT lanes on Denny Way.
“The SDOT Mercer Street project destroyed the Route 30 pathway and the Route 8 reliability by congesting Denny Way.”
Hasn’t Denny Way always been congested? Especially with the SLU highrise offices that were built starting in the late 2000s. What does the Mercer Way project have to do with that? Are there people who used to drive on Mercer Street that are now driving on Denny Way? Why would they do that?
I think if you expect a surge at a PNB show you will be disappointed. McCaw Hall holds fewer than 3000 people.
In my experience, while I always take the monorail to PNB, it really doesn’t seem like anyone else does. I’m pretty sure most of the audience drives there.
There are indeed ca. 3K parking slots at Seattle Center. $15 for more than 2 hours, which most people going to an event at McCaw Hall can afford.
If just 1k of McCaw Hall event-goers get there and back via light rail + bus/monorail, that is still ca. 13 full artic shuttle buses or 10 full double-talls each way.
The Paramount Theatre (capacity 2.8K) does not have its own parking. I have seen the phalanx of patrons who head for Westlake when a full event lets out.
What utter insanity. It’s not like “find[ing] more money” means, “a Billion here, a Billion there…”. No. There are thirty-five of them to “find”! Does Robert Cruikshank believe that there are Billion Bushes growing somewhere in the Sound Transit Service Area? Do you? Mmmm; I didn’t think so either.
There must be “cuts to the voter approved system”.
Now, the question of course arises, “What cuts?” and it’s pretty obvious: WSLE, BLE other than Westlake to Smith Cove, the absurd “Line 4” and Everett Link beyond “Pain” Field [sic].
Yes, I get that I haven’t included Tacoma Dome Link, for strictly political reasons. It is only marginally less “terrible transit” than is Line 4, but it is mandated by Sub-Area Equity as is Link to Pain Field. Pierce County in particular is owed a large debt by North and East King, and Tacoma Dome link is the easiest to build and the least expensive of any of the expansion projects.
And “Yes, of course the short BLE stub should be Automated Light Metro”.
The Urbanist has been drinking from the same Kool-Aid jug as Seattle Subway.
Cruickshank’s point is that ST must explore and exhaust every possible opportunity to reduce costs and increase financial capacity before cutting scope just because the agency can’t afford it. I think it’s a fair point.
It seems inevitable that ST will propose an ST4 in 2028 to backfill ST3, increase its debt ceiling, and accelerate completion of the ST3 lines beyond the MOS it can afford to build on the current schedule. Transit “advocates” who oppose completing the light rail expansions planned under ST3 simply because the costs are too high will have to come up with a really good set of alternative projects that would actually pass across the ST taxing area. It’s worth keeping in mind that voters really like trains.
Nathan, isn’t the time of greatest stricture in the early 2030’s? And hasn’t ST encumbered everything that the Leg has granted it? So how does “passing ST4” help, if it would even pass given that the deferrals would have been in North King and Snohomish?
No, Seattle needs to concentrate on getting the Legislature to give it bigger taxing authority so it can contract with ST to build and run the only reasonable urban Metro.
> isn’t the time of greatest stricture in the early 2030’s?
Yes, so if ST wants to finish ST3 on the pre-2026 schedule, it will need to find new revenue and/or increase its debt ceiling (only possible with voter approval) before the 2030s. I expect ST will propose building the MOS for each line on-schedule and say something like “without more annual revenue or increasing our debt ceiling, remaining projects will be finished in the 2050s-2060s”.
>hasn’t ST encumbered everything that the Leg has granted it?Seattle needs to concentrate on getting the Legislature to give it bigger taxing authority so it can contract with ST to build and run the only reasonable urban Metro.
I’m pretty sure Seattle already has this authority under the transportation benefit districts and monorail authority, both of which have the same almost-unlimited funding capacity if proposed taxes are voter-approved.
The state is about to pass a 9.9% income tax on millionaires which increases the number of items exempt from sales taxes. The hit on sales taxes will impact agency budgets severely, but I think the assumption is tax districts will start charging their own income taxes instead of having to implement workaround payroll taxes like Seattle has done for JumpStart and the Social Housing Developer. I think ST can and should consider implementing a capital gains tax or other progressive taxes to backfill ST3. These are the sorts of “clever solutions” Cruickshank is calling for.
Oh, my, I did not know that the millionaires’ tax was going to be partly used to reduce sales taxes. While yes, that would make the State tax structure more progressive, it will also make it more random and unpredictable.
This will hurt the smaller PTBA’s who have no herd of millionaires to milk.
Thanks for the info.
I thought the Monorail Authority was pretty strictly capped, but you seem to think not. I truly hope you’re correct and I misunderstood, because I’m pretty certain that an Automated Light Metro would be enough different from “LRT” to squeak by the embargo of that specific technology.
It’s another argument for changing horses for BLE. It can become the start of a better urban system with small stations and ultra frequent service.
I’m no expert on the monorail authority’s tax capacity, but if it’s anything like the transportation benefit district, the limits are on what the authority can levy without voter approval. The legislature generally seems open to allow voters to approve any sort of flat-rate tax (except, as previously mentioned, property taxes totaling more than 1% of property value).
The hard part is coming up with progressive taxation, but if you layer a bunch of different taxes which varying exemptions, you could construct a progressive system over time…
Nathan,
for RCW on SMP tax authority see:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=35.95A
It is limited to monorail through SMP. the max rate is 2.5 percent. When the SMP got approved, the rate was 1.4 percent. That turned out to be insufficient when their economist made an error interpreting the MVET database he got from ST. Rather than try a better ballot measure, the SMP attempted cotton candy financing that had bonds upon bonds. (Today, see 75-year term).
Rep. David Hackney, D-11, did attempt to get the RCW amended to allow the MVET to be used for Link. I do not think his bill passed.
Tom Terrific is correct. ST needs to reduce the size of its rock; see Sisyphus.
RE: the monorail authority’s tax capacity
Don’t get the Seattle Monorail Authority confused with Seattle Monorail Services that operates the Seattle Monorail. The later is a private company that operates at a profit which it shares 50/50 with the City of Seattle (which owns the Monorail).
Nathan, isn’t Westlake to Smith Cove with a small MF in Interbay or a single-track non-revenue connection between Third and Pine (southbound track) and Stewart and Westlake, the actual Minimum Operable Segment for BLE?
That’s the only worthwhile rail project in North King’s ST3 portfolio and the reason I chose it.
Building just the “MOS” to Delridge people have been talking about for WSLE would be criminal negligence with public funds. Spending three or four billion dollars on a mile-long viaduct from Fifth and Lander to Delridge and Andover should buy the perps a one-way ticket to Walla Walla.
Thanks, Jack; this is great information! It looks like what I believed about the enabling legislation is not true. It doesn’t specifically exclude “LRT” as I believed, but rather specifies “Monorail”. So an Automated Light Metro would not qualify.
Well, we can always ask the Leg to revise the legislation to include a Light Metro and reactivate it. If ST can pay for Westlake to Smith Cove, which really is a regional asset, the 1.5% cap can probably accommodate at least the First Hill leg to Yesler and (maybe?) getting across the Ship Canal? Ballard to Yesler could serve well for a decade or two and then maybe enough money would have accumulated to build either the Ballard-UW or Yesler-Mt. Baker leg. After another decade the money pot would be full enough to finish the last leg.
Of course, all of this Futurecasting depends on the continuation of the United States as a viable nation. Things are not looking too spiffy on that score right now. Jes’ sayin’
“That turned out to be insufficient when their economist made an error interpreting the MVET database he got from ST.”
And Eyman’s initiatives pulled the MVET out from under the monorail.
> isn’t Westlake to Smith Cove with a small MF in Interbay or a single-track non-revenue connection between Third and Pine
Let’s get the terms straight: I’m referring to the “Minimum Operable Segment (MOS)” defined used in the 2022 WSBLE DEIS. Study of an MOS is apparently required by the FTA for them to issue a Record of Decision regarding the project. We don’t actually know for certain what MOS is described in the new Draft EIS for the Ballard Link Extension, but it’s generally assumed to be the same Smith Cove to CID segment described in the 2022 combined DEIS.
ST studied the rough-order-of-magnitude feasibility of an MOS from Smith Cove to Westlake, but the Board did not direct staff to amend the BLE DEIS to include this as a potential construction option. The new BLE DEIS is reportedly in under review by the FTA (as of January 2026) and expected to be released in on May 29, 2026. Apparently the FTA’s review is “pending final FTA guidance regarding executive orders”. Take that as you will.
RE: monorail funding:
OK, you’ve successfully made me read the RCW (again). My supposition that the monorail authority enabling legislation had potentially unlimited tax authority was wrong. Here are the exact limits:
RCW 35.95A.080 sets a vehicle excise tax limit of 2.5% and a rental car tax limit of 1.944%.
RCW 35.95A.090 sets a special VLF limit of $100.
RCW 35.95A.100 sets a property tax limit of 1.5‰ if approved by simple majority of voters.
Nathan, yes, you’re right. To ST the “MOS” includes the DSTT2 all the way from Massachussetts on the south to New Westlake and then whatever they call it north of there to Smith Cove.
However, I believe that an operable segment can be built from Westlake to Smith Cove either by building a small MF for automated trains in the truck parking area between the throat tracks of Ballmer Yard and the Elliott Bay Trail OR digging a single-track connection to the southbound Spine track at Third and Pine under Third to Stewart, Stewart to Westlake and Westlake to its junction with Sixth.
Obviously, a hole in the north wall of the Westlake box would have to be demised to let the track and trains through, and that might mean some strengthening would be necessary. And it would require closing Third between Pine and Stewart to do all that. And there would be some weirdness about propulsion because a Light Metro would be considerably cheaper if built with third-rail power pickup (smaller diameter tunnels). So some sort of dual-mode “donkey” would be required to move cars between the two systems.
But it could be done.
I know this would be a hard pill for ST to swallow, but whatever BLE ultimately grows into will be fifteen to twenty percent cheaper to build and operate with third rail than pantograph LRT would be. The only place in the entire potential line that might be placed directly on the ground is a bit less than a mile alongside Ballmer Yard in Interbay, between Smith Cove and Interbay stations. Everywhere else will be elevated or tunneled, so elevating the trackway eight feet through this stretch to keep people safe is a reasonable “extra” expense in order to save many times as much on smaller tunnels and avoiding overhead in other sections.
Clarification. On the Third Avenue Closure I would expect that decking would cover the work and that buses would be allowed through the workzone, but not cars. It’s SOP to add the decking about 1/3 of the roadway width at a time while maintaining narrowed but safe two-way vehicle pathways during its creation. It would make sense to make it bus-only even if the rest of Third isn’t.
I saw how they did it on Market Street during construction of the BART/Muni tunnel. You have to get down about ten feet in each section before the decking can be constructed over that part. So you do the third next to the curb on one side, the third next to the other curb and then the middle, which doesn’t get fully decked until the excavation taking place below reaches its ultimate depth, so there’s a way to get the spoils out. The workers build a temporary steel scaffolding holding it all up until the box walls can be poured. Since this would be just a single-track, it’s possible that only half of Pine street would even have to be excavated.
Notice that this alignment takes advantage of two oblique angles (at Third and Stewart and Stewart and Westlake) to make the necessary curves easier.
It would make sense to have to stretch under Stewart bored, if the TBM boring the southbound BLE tube can turn up Stewart. That intersection is very oblique. The New Westlake station box would have to encompass the curve though, I think. Maybe the TBM comes into the box and is re-positioned to make the tube toward Third Avenue. The TBM could be removed at Stewart and Third after it bored that short stretch.
>operable segment can be built from Westlake to Smith Cove
Yes, and ST staff’s feasibility assessment agreed that this could be done, with a potential cost savings of $0 to 4B.
The only boardmember pushing to keep this option on the table was Claudia Balducci but she was unexpectedly kicked off the System Expansion Committee earlier this year. I think her willingness to abandon DSTT2 is what got her booted, but we may never know.
If you want ST to take any of these radical technical alternatives seriously, you’ll have to investigate ST’s engineering standards which drive their conceptual designs. I mean, they shaved half a billion off the Seattle Center cost estimate by changing the preliminary design of the station platform to be “slightly trapezoidal”!! What else could they accomplish if they were willing to deviate from perfectly flat, perfectly straight platforms, or increase their risk tolerance to allow them to run a TBD less than 20 feet away from existing subsurface structures?
After all the cuts you listed only TDLE, half of Everett link, half of ballard link is remaining. Or did I miss something?
The BRT projects, the in-fill stations, and the maintenance facilities would also remain in the plan. But, “Yes”, your summary is mostly correct. The costs of full BLE including DSTT2 and WSLE have blown entirely out of affordability given any reasonable assumptions.
I’ll admit that East King would probably have enough tax ceiling to get Line 4 to Eastgate, and that may choose that. But what a puny, pathetic rail project that would be. As Ross and others have noted correctly, a fan-BRT project, with multiple routes to many places in and north of Issaquah using a direct link between the center HOV lanes on I-90 and those on I-405 (preferably both directions) would be cheaper and serve far more people.
In order to avoid adding to the complexity of that four-level interchange, a low speed, “bus sized”, elevated, bus-only roundabout could be placed above its center with three access ramps, to and from north 405, south 405 and east 90. It’s not impossible to imagine including bus platforms in the northeast, southeast and southwest quadrants connected to a walkway to Factoria. There would necessarily be walkways crossing the Issaquah and Renton access roadway arms, but buses would be infrequent enough that the cross-walks would be safe.
[In simpler English, the northeast platform would be a stop for all buses headed for Bellevue. The southeast would be for all buses headed to Issaquah and the southwest to Renton.
So, someone going from Issaquah to Bellevue could of course ride an Issaquah-Bellevue direct bus (“STRide 4”?), but they could also ride an Issaquah-Renton (or beyond) (“STRide 5?”) bus, get off at the Renton platform and cross over to the Bellevue platform and catch a Renton-Bellevue (STRide 1) bus at the northeast platform if it came first at the roundabout. Someone riding from Renton to Bellevue could wait to take STRide 1 and just ride through on the same bus that might pick up the person mentioned above. Or they could take a Renton-Issaquah STRide 5 to the southeast platform, cross the I-90 East arm and wait at the northeast platform for STRide 1 or STRide 4.
To go from Renton to Issaquah a person could wait for mooted STRide 5 or take STRide 1 to the northeast platform, cross to the southeast platform and wait for whichever bus came first.
To go to Issaquah from Renton (or beyond) would require crossing two of the access legs, the I-90 and I-405 South connectors and a somewhat longer walk.
Some sort of long ramp up from the Mountains to Sound Trail would connect to the bus loop level. That would make the pedestrian semi-circle would about two hundred yards farther from the Factoria Trail and Factoria Boulevard than the proposed Richards Road Line 4 station north of I-90 would be but it would also provide access to STRide 1 which isn’t currently planned to have a stop for Factoria. (By the way WTF is THAT about!?!?!)
What is actually utterly insane are your proposed cuts. Literally all we get out of it is Light Rail to Tacoma Dome that is supposedly “terrible transit” even by your own admission, light rail halfway to Everett but not all the way, and the worst version of the automated Ballard stub to date where it doesn’t even go to Ballard. At this point money would be better spent to just buy everyone a car instead of this half baked monstrosity but that’s probably the point.
If The Urbanist and Seattle Subway are drinking from a Kool-Aid jug I have no clue what you’re chugging but I kinda want it just for the ridiculousness of it.
Well, for one thing, it’s affordable and gets the UW-Ballard-First Hill-North Rainier Valley line that actually serves useful transit destinations started. And it’s all that the North King County Sub-Area can afford!!!!
Quit drinking the Seattle Subway Fireball and wake up. The dollar is plunging in value as we speak, the national deficit is half-way to the Moon — it’s gonna get there before Artemis, you can be sure of that — the rest of the world says, “What the F happened to you people?” and the current worst-case estimates are probably already too small.
Save something useful for Seattle, or you’re going to get DSTT2 from Massachussetts to “Midtown in Pioneer Square” and a mile long viaduct to 35th and Avalon.
Which trips do you perceive as being made better by any of the proposed projects?
What voter in Snohomish County approved having to take 11 floors of escalators to transfer to anything at Westlake (including their existing trips to SeaTac)?
What voter in Ballard is going to want to take the 44 to 14th and transfer to something that really isn’t that much faster than the D or 40?
West Seattle would likely get the C and H lines truncated, with the Link line running half as often as the combination. The Link line at Alaska Junction winds up about as deep as Capitol Hill, and pretty much everyone has to transfer there. The West Seattle plan also eliminates the SoDo busway, making a lot of trips from the south slower.
Everett Station isn’t that close to anything in Everett. There’s a fair number of bus routes that terminate there, but for the most part it’d be better to spend the limited funds on a station located somewhere in Everett that’s actually where people need to go.
It’s a difficult situation because people voted for the lines on a map, but now the actual plan for how to do those lines isn’t especially great. The cost cutting changes to do things like make Line 4 not serve much in either Issaquah or Kirkland, and chopping a West Seattle station, makes it all the worse.
Thanks, Glenn. You have given an excellent list of several the “problems” of the “preferred alternatives” of the ST3 parts of the system. Most are really not amenable to satisfactory solutions, regardless of the cost of those “solutions”.
“What voter in Snohomish County approved having to take 11 floors of escalators to transfer to anything at Westlake (including their existing trips to SeaTac)?”
According to ST, that’s an unimportant detail. And there’s been no movement among Snohomish politicians or voters to counteract that. It would really help if there were one.
“What voter in Ballard is going to want to take the 44 to 14th and transfer to something that really isn’t that much faster than the D or 40?”
Transferring at 15th was on the ballot, so that’s what they voted for. It’s unclear whether 14th will still survive: last I heard 15th was ST’s preferred alternative. Link will be significantly faster than the current D or 40 because it’s grade-separated and immune to congestion, traffic lights, and the street grid.
Of course, SDOT is currently making the 40 faster, and it could do so with the D (especially by staying on Elliott/Denny rather than going through Uptown, or Metro could run the 15 all day as a faster alternative). But it remains to be seen how much faster the 40 would be and whether it would be competitive with Link. And SDOT/Metro haven’t committed to improving the D or making the 15 all-day at all. There’s vague money in ST3 for “RapidRide C/D improvements”, but nobody has said what those would be or when they would happen.
“ST3 simply because the costs are too high will have to come up with a really good set of alternative projects that would actually pass across the ST taxing area”
Sound Transit is filibustering the ideas we’ve already come up with and any other productive ideas. If somebody really explains to the public what the experience will be coming from the Eastside in DSTT1 and transferring to the airport in DSTT2, or coming from Rainier Valley in DSTT2 and transferring to the U-District or northeast Seattle or Capitol Hill in DSTT1, and why it’s absolutely imperative to improve these transfers, there would be significant public support for it. But ST is blocking any alternatives and the politicians aren’t having an unbiased debate about what the impacts of ST’s projects and potential alternatives would be. We don’t know these wouldn’t pass because the public has never been asked or heard the real impact arguments.
> politicians aren’t having an unbiased debate
… is it possible for politicians to have an unbiased debate?
My point is that I think Cruickshank’s style leans on just telling political leaders what the people want to see and making the politicians figure it out. I think it can be effective, but it assumes political leaders care about what transit advocates think. There’s a much more complicated and always evolving debate about which advocacy styles are more effective than others, but ultimately I’m not sure the public really cares about the opinion of armchair engineers over the professional regarding system design. The public just wants to see results. They want to see trains, not buses.
“Light Rail to Tacoma Dome that is supposedly “terrible transit” even by your own admission”
The Tacoma Dome segment is inexpensive because it’s all in public right of way on straight flat highways in a wide-open area, and Pierce saved up a large down payment for it, and it’s politically sensitive because Tacoma is one of the four Spine cities. So if it’s the only extension that gets built, we can ignore that. It’s not worth putting a lot of energy into trying to kill it.
Tacoma Dome actually has quite a few challenges ahead of it. The land on the Puyallup reservation is different to negotiate than something off rez. I believe this is the first rapid transit project on a reservation in the US so it will be complicated simply because it’s new. I believe that there isn’t the same takings process that you would expect for the rest of the system. Additionally, there is land that needs to be taken in Fife for their preferred alternative, which is fine but will present more cost and challenge.
D M, yes those are “obstacles”, but “Fife” is such a malleable concept that if necessary the station can be placed between SR99 and the freeway or, heck, put it on structure in the freeway ROW through the Milton wetland and cross-over to SOUTH of the freeway interchange for the station. If the Puyallup Tribe wants to extort from SoundTransit, just bypass their lands.
The point is that Pierce Sub-Area already has a huge lien against North and East King, so it will, rightfully demand that it comes first.
Tom, you can’t just bypass the Puyallup Reservation. Any alignment would necessarily go through it. Also, disenfranchising a tribe further is hardly ethical nor does it fulfill treaty obligations that the US would have with them. They are a sovereign entity, not just a county or town, and we are going to be building on their land. That is challenging but doable.
OK, I see that the Reservation does go quite a bit south of I-5, so just going on the south side of the freeway won’t avoid it. So if the tribe simply does not want Link to pass through its land, then don’t build Tacoma Dome Link.
Jesus, people, all of these billions and billions of dollars will maybe carry 10% of total person-trips within the service area when all is said and done, if we’re lucky! If Tacoma is out of reach because the Tribe just can’t allow it to cross their land, so be it. You are right that they have treaty rights to stop it.
What have they said that makes you think they want to do so?
I never said they want to cancel the extension, just that the way it will be built will be complicated and different, which could pose a cost risk.
I think ST has already worked out the issues with the reservation.It’s part of the EIS process for Tacoma Dome Link.
The spine worship is one of the main ST problems.
The Legislature should ask WSDOT to convert some of the I-5 lanes between the TDS and FW to HOV or HOT lanes.
Sound Transit was formed to build a light rail transit spine from Everett to Tacoma via Seattle first, and connect other regional centers second. Why would ST ever abandon that founding principle?
Nathan,
for two reasons: the founding principle is flawed; the spine is unaffordable. Note that Pierce voted no in 2016. The spine could be redefined as a combination of Link, Sounder, and bus service. Each has its best use. In ST3, Link is used to connect to parking at the Tacoma Dome and South Kirkland P&R; that seems a poor choice. The Issaquah line is again in a freeway envelope; that seems a poor choice. If the ST3 Stride2 center access ramp is provided at NE 85th Street, ST could implement fast and frequent bus service between the KTC and Issaquah via BTC and Eastgate. It could be accomplished much faster and be better on some margins. But you are correct, the spine is a founding principle and a major issue for ST. In ST3, they are attempting to split the spine. In south Everett, they intend to give the spine scoliosis.
Good one. Very good.
His essay is contradictory. He calls for reforming Sound Transit at the same he says we should build what the board approved. It is the same problem. The lack of proper planning led to this mess. It led to choosing options that are simply a terrible value. He seems to call for more funding but just assumes it should be thrown at these same projects. West Seattle Link was a bad value at $1.5 billion. How does it become a good value at $8 billion. And yes, the cost goes up the longer we wait — but that is not the big problem. The main reason the project costs so much is because they’ve finally done the detailed engineering to figure out the costs.
They really don’t need more money. They need a different set of projects. Yes, that is admitting failure. Anything they do at this point is admitting failure. If we are going to ask for more money we need to go back to the drawing board and come up with different ideas. Then we need to investigate those ideas in detail before going further. There is no reason at all to assume that the set of plans they came up with initially are the best value.
This, in a concise nutshell. Well done, Ross.
Correct. ST has three large streams of revenue from 1996, 2008, and 2016. They have more than other transit agencies here and around the nation. ST needs to reduce the size of their rock, see Sisyphus.
In the NYT this week, there is coverage of a fiscal crisis for BART and SF Muni; they are attempting a joint ballot measure. See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/bart-bay-area-san-francisco-transit.html
From the NYT piece on BART:
‘Voters in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties would be asked to add an extra half a percentage point to their sales tax rates. Those in San Francisco would be asked to approve a full percentage point that would also help Muni, which desperately needs money to run the city’s local buses, subway trains and street cars. (Muni, like BART, has also threatened dire measures, such as no longer running the city’s historic cable cars or ending service at 9 p.m., before San Francisco Giants night games end.)”
Could King County and Seattle perform a similar dance in 2026? Could they attempt two parallel and simultaneous TBD measures. King County needs roads funding and additional service subsidy, especially for South King County. Seattle wants to continue its more robust transit service.
“They really don’t need more money. They need a different set of projects. Yes, that is admitting failure. ”
Yes I fully agree. ST could get more for the billions that the taxpayers gifted them a decade ago.
But they refuse to ask the basic question: What’s the best value for what we were given in 2016?
Many of the regular posters have varying opinions on the detail and technologies, but we all seem very frustrated that ST won’t ask this question.
Most urban regions in the US don’t have this big of a transit gift to spend on capital projects per capita. We do! ST is blessed with billions! The revenue stream will go for at least 20 years and maybe more.
Let’s be clear too that the huge costs are incurred because very wealthy interests play the transit capital game for their personal financial benefit. They want to either sell their problematic real estate parcels/ buildings to ST, or they want ST to give them mitigation money or they want to make a profit on the real estate land that they’ve bought in anticipation of a nearby station that brings desirability or upzoning potential.
The more I look at the sudden changes made by the Board and the more I see the Board quietly making real estate deals and begging for lots more money even as they debate what to do about the shortfall, the more I feel like ST3 has become about about a transfer of real estate wealth than it is improving transit. Heck the Board doesn’t even care about total rider time or ridership volumes in their discussions, and they haven’t for years. But they salivate at renderings of the most grandiose capital alternatives and complain that they don’t have enough money to spend.
“But they refuse to ask the basic question: What’s the best value for what we were given in 2016?
Many of the regular posters have varying opinions on the detail and technologies, but we all seem very frustrated that ST won’t ask this question.”
They are answering it: they’re saying the full Everett, Tacoma Dome, Ballard, and West Seattle extensions, and DSTT2, even if it has bad downtown transfers. They’re saying that’s the only thing that fulfills the will of the voters. (And they have a blind spot about transfers.)
Hugely agree! Let’s say ST3 all gets built at the projected price. We will have “accomplished” at least these things:
1. the most capital-expensive light rail per mile in the world
2. the most capital-expensive light rail per passenger in the world
3. kneecapped ourself with the operating cost of that system
4. become a laughingstock for rail projects everywhere
I’m ideologically aligned with local transit projects (why I follow this blog) but ST3 is destined to be even worse than CAHSR at this point
Speaking of CAHSR
And then there’s Brightline West:
Thanks Bernie, I actually had that CAHSR business plan in mind when making the comparison. CAHSR is hugely expensive and delayed, but at least has a path to profit when connected to the conventional rail lines at each end. No such luck for ST3 – a money pit today (capital) and forever (operations)
Just like STB, the Urbanist lets writers write op-eds that don’t have to be approved by an editorial board.
The STB editors have a set of values and goals. We choose authors based on general compatibility with those goals, along with writing quality, etc. Once we have a proven author who’s a regular contributor, we don’t micromanage their articles: we let them express their viewpoints and interests even if not all the editors agree with them or they’re at the fringe of the editors’ goals. In journalism these are called “commentaries”, though “op-ed” is OK if people are clear what it means.
There’s a separate set of articles, “editorials”, signed “by the STB Editorial Board”, for STB’s official viewpoint and calls to action that the editors are agreed we can all support and are critical and we’re not likely to change our mind on. We rarely use this, but instead reserve it for the most urgent and critical issues.
Page 2 offers a place for dissenting opinions, ideas that need more thought and debate before we’re ready to put them on Page 1 (the first gondola articles were on Page 2, and the first funicular article), and other things.
Vancouver builds cheaper by not digging tunnels unless it is absolutely necessary. One doesn’t have to outright cut projects given transit agencies, unlike people, can support debt obligations for as long as there’s people alive to pay taxes. The right approach is to build smarter like our northern neighbor does. If they can’t afford West Seattle and Ballard underground, then elevate it. But the system should go where it has been promised to go as simply not building it just means it will be more expensive later. That’s exactly why they can’t afford it now. Too much waiting. Too much short term fear.
Sadly for your simplistic “bright idea” there’s no way to “elevate” BLE through South Lake Union, Uptown or the “Classic CBD”. And nobody has proposed tunneling it through the industrial flats between Smith Cove and The Ship Canal.
The problem with bridging the Canal is that the Coast Guard wants clearance for a ship the height of which has not transited the Canal in seventy-five years. Nobody is quite sure why.
The storage tunnel just being completed along the north shore is a real impediment to a possible rail tunnel, so a bridge it will probably be, but it will have to open to avoid being a lovely eyesore.
And there is certainly no way to “elevate” a line serving First Hill, which is a primary goal for most of the regular “blogosphere” here. We understand that the first principle of “Good Transit” is “Build it where people want to go.”
Tom, staying underground from LQA through to Ballard is a proposed alternative but it assumes combining Smith Cove and Dravus into one station east of 15th Ave W. It’s the “no impact” option and it’s dumb, but it’s in there.
Thanks, Nathan. It would be “dumb”, indeed. I don’t recall ever having seen that one.
Huh. I went looking for it and I guess I’m misremembering from my time on the Community Advisory Group when the WSBLE alternatives were being screened. But there’s still a webpage with showing ST’s analysis of the alternative (“Consolidated Alignment”): https://ballardlink.participate.online/interbay-ballard-further-studies.html#si-ca
Apparently the option didn’t make it to the WSBLE DEIS.
Is there any way that we can ask for these giant view-block Don’t be a Monster signs to be removed ahead of Crosslake opening?
The rider etiquette signs with monster characters on Light Rail car windows. I am almost certain that they have had no effect on rider etiquette, and people want to see out the windows when the Crosslake Connection opens.
I don’t see why people think the Tacoma Dome extension is such a bad idea. What seems ludicrous is to stop at Federal Way. As is it’s a one way route into Seattle in the morning. Extending that short bit south starts to pull in Tacoma commuters which, while small now will rebound.
The Tacoma Dome hosts large events and Link to Seattle and the Eastside will make it a more attractive venue. There’s already a whopping big parking garage making it ideal for travel into Seattle for events. You might be able to eliminate Sounder; you sure have a lot more flexibility with Link.
I’m sure the Puyallup Tribe will be supportive. Casino Station will be one of the nicest on the entire system and increase ridership.
The other money pit for Pierce subarea is extending the streetcar to Lakewood. Now that’s a bad idea!
The “massive” park and ride structure only holds about 2,000 cars. This doesn’t really represent that many riders.
Due to the proposed Link extension taking about 1/2 hour longer between Tacoma and Seattle, very few people are going to commute that distance using Link. During peak periods, Sounder is faster. During periods Sounder doesn’t run, the express buses are faster, and get people closer to their destination. Under the current plan, someone using transit would enter downtown Tacoma on the local bus, get to Tacoma Dome using T Link, then switch to 1 Line trains to get where they need.
Tacoma Dome events in the evening will be poorly served by Link due to the system shut down time. As illustrated by poor ridership at Stadium station, events really don’t create very much full time ridership.
I just don’t see that many people using this, since the service that is planned will be so much slower than what is there now.
Tacoma Dome parking capacity is 2,380 and #1 by a wide margin until construction at Eastgate ups capacity to 2,917 (Pro tip, download the .csv rather than trying to scroll through all 4480 line in the database). And it’s already built (i.e. sunk cost). I shudder to think what percent of East Link construction was brand new P&R lots. If parking capacity ever is an issue the Tacoma Dome has huge surface lots and so does LeMay – America’s Car Museum. Likewise the streetcar and Amtrak are already there. Tacoma’s a pretty fun place to visit and will be more frequently on my list when I can walk to the Bel-Red Link station and ride a nice smooth train all the way there (albeit with an @#$% transfer at CID).
Sure I could get there now, maybe even marginally faster, with a series of transfers to buses but that’s not going to happen. The quality of riding a train is just light years ahead of any bus. You can get up and walk around. You can talk with friends at a normal conversational level. And most of all, you know where and when it will be running.
I think people will be surprised at how well the Tacoma Dome extension works out. Again, there’s already the sunk cost of getting to Federal Way. Comparing boardings per dollar I’ll wager it far exceeds the benefit of building a light rail line from Bellevue to Issaquah.
“I think people will be surprised at how well the Tacoma Dome extension works out.”
Initial Federal Way ridership has been surprisingly high. We’re waiting for more months of data to see how promising the extension is turning out to be. If it does turn out to be more productive than expected over the long term, that could bode well for Tacoma Dome. But the headwinds against Federal Way’s productivity are even stronger at Tacoma Dome; i.e., an over 60 minute travel time to downtown Seattle, no downtown around the station, and no sign of when the promised urban village might be built.
I would say that Tacoma Dome Extension’s biggest problem is that ends at Tacoma Dome. It should have gone one more station at least to UWT where it could connect with local buses more easily as well as made much of Downtown Tacoma walkable from the end station.
I certainly agree, Al, but the “Good Burgers” [sic] of Tacoma want it to end at their shopping mall not their CBD.
For some reason.
I really don’t know what you folks are on about. Seems like none of you has actually visited Tacoma. Maybe instead of Tacoma Dome it would be better, certainly more accurate, to say Freighthouse Square. It’s near the Tacoma Dome but actually 4 block north. Freighthouse Square has Sounder, Amtrak and the Tacoma Streetcar. The streetcar is great. It takes you right downtown Tacoma and now to UW Tacoma. How in the hell would you get Link to UW Tacoma and at what cost, for what? It just gets you to the other end of the streetcar line. Pacific Ave in DT Tacoma is, thank god, nothing like 3rd Ave in Seattle. There’s no room for a fleet of noisy stinky buses. And no need since it’s served wonderfully by the streetcar. Think Seattle’s old waterfront except better. There also seems to be confusion about the difference between the Tacoma Mall (shopping center… sort of, dead and dying) and the Tacoma Dome. They are miles apart and a world different.
The idea that Freighthouse Square is too out of the way for PT transit routes but somehow DT or anywhere north of there is better, how so? Where?
I’ll take an hour to get to DT Seattle. So? It’s 45 minutes from Lynnwood to CID. It’ll be faster from Freighthouse Square to SEA than it is from Lynnwood and a lot of people think Link to the airport is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It’ll probably be faster from Tacoma to the airport than Bel-Red since you don’t have to do the up and over transfer at CID.
Tacoma has some nice things. Virtually none of these are within what most people would consider walking distance of Tacoma Dome Station. Sure, I’ve walked to downtown Tacoma from there, but nobody is going to be making that walk part of their daily routine to get to downtown Seattle.
Tacoma Link cars are only 8 inches narrower than Central Link cars. The two lower voltage insulation classes for railroad grade wire are 600 volts and 2,000 volts, so at 750 volts nominal they’re already using insulators rated at least 2,000 volts. Central Link cars are designed to be used by a wide variety of systems, including those with short radius curves. Substations can have their voltages adjusted, and in fact many MAX substations have been converted to put out closer to 1,000 volts on TriMet’s “750 volt” system.
So, convert Tacoma Link to use the same cars as Central Link lines, and extend the line to TIBS. Use single car trains (the ST estimated ridership south of Federal Way is about 1/4 that both of SeaTac, so single car trains and small stations will suffice for the small number of passengers).
To make the transfers easier, scheduling needs to be offset by 2 minutes. That is, southbound, a Tacoma Dome train leaves TIBS 2 minutes after a Federal Way train leaves, and northbound a Seattle bound train leaves 2 minutes a Tacoma – TIBS train leaves.
The total cost shouldn’t really be that much compared to the overall scheme of things, and it creates a Tacoma light rail line that actually connects to a number of transit hubs with only one transfer. It also gives ST additional light rail cars for the Central Link 4 car trains, since the 4 car trains won’t be needed south of Federal Way. Tacoma Link OMF can also serve as a terminating facility for early morning and late night services, helping to reduce deadhead moves.
For those needing to go from downtown Tacoma to downtown Seattle, there will still be the 594, since ST doesn’t plan to get rid of buses that are significantly faster than Link.
“The idea that Freighthouse Square is too out of the way for PT transit routes but somehow DT or anywhere north of there is better, how so?”
Do I have to explain why downtowns are downtowns, and why it’s the biggest destination and transfer point in a city?
Downtown Tacoma has UW Tacoma, office buildings where people work, three museums, the courthouse, transfers to Pierce Transit bus routes to all parts of Tacoma and Pierce County, residents in dense buildings, tourists, the Pantages Theater, the huge Sanford & Son antique store, and other cultural amenities you can probably list better than I can. All this is why Central Link should go to downtown Tacoma if it goes to Tacoma at all.
Why walk when you can take the streetcar? The only things I’d walk to from Freighthouse Square are the Tacoma Dome (never been) and the Lemay – America’s Car Museum (done that twice and will do it again). Everything else is walking distance (< 1/2 mi) or doorstep delivery via TLink. I'm looking forward on my next trip when it's a nice day to explore Wright Park. Dinner at the Old Spagetti Factory for nostalgic reasons and I've been wanting to check out McMenamins Elks Temple. The transfer is so easy why throw out all the TLink rolling stock? The curves would definitely have to be redone and all the station platforms. The advantage of running 1 Line trains to Tacoma General and St Joes? You have an elegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
“There you go again.” The Seattle centric point of view. The only reason people would use Link is to go to Seattle. Everyone who lives in Tacoma only does so because they can’t afford Seattle. Nobody in Federal Way has a job in Tacoma or would want one.
Exactly! All within a 1/2 mile walk of TLink. Ya know, the 2 Line is useless. I’d have to transfer to get to SEA. Nobody does that. Because I can’t walk from CID to the airport they shouldn’t have built it. You’re hating on a flat platform transfer to TLink but then complaining that the reason the route is useless is because there aren’t enough bus transfers. Let’s see, how many bus routes cross TLink on MLK or Division?
“Why walk when you can take the streetcar?”
Why force an unnecessary transfer just a mile short of downtown? That’s not the way to maximize ridership and position transit as a first choice. Rapid transit should be best in the major trip ends. Downtown Tacoma is clearly the one place it most should serve, just like downtown Bellevue, Redmond, Federal Way, and Lynnwood. Because a large number of people are going to there or from there or transferring there. Rapid transit needs to have stations in the center of where the largest concentrations of pedestrians are.
If you transfer to the T Line, you might wait 12-20 minutes for it. Say you’re going from Federal Way to downtown Tacoma. I’m guessing FW to Tacoma Dome is 20 minutes. You wait 20 more minute, and then take the T Line four stops, which is 10 minutes. Whereas if Central Link continued to the same place, it might take 25-30 minutes. So your 30 minute trip has ballooned to 50 minutes.
If the T Line went to Federal Way and you transferred there, and it were brought up to Central Link’s frequency and had the 2-minute transfer stagger somebody mentioned, then if you’re going from say Highline College to downtown Tacoma, both segments are reasonably long so the transfer feels more reasonable, and downtown Federal Way has actual destinations you can stopover at along the way.
I think it needs to be pointed out that T-Link operates on a single track. South of S 21st St. The limits streetcar frequency. A rider transferring from Link may have a wait.
Downtown Tacoma also has several bus routes. Forcing a double transfer in Downtown Tacoma and again at Tacoma Dome a short distance away is pretty mean to riders.
Redmond has just illustrated how to do it! It’s a very basic formula with the end station in a walkable village and the next station with the garage. Downtown Redmond even has more Link boardings than Marymoor Village. It’s an amazing prototype. It’s what ST should have in plans for Tacoma, Everett and Issaquah.
Link should either go to downtown Tacoma and a major PT bus transfer point, or not beyond Federal Way at all. Terminating at Tacoma Dome station is the worst of both worlds.
And Tacoma Dome station is too far east for many PT routes in the area; they would have to detour blocks to it. That would slow down people going on PT from south Tacoma to downtown Tacoma or to north Tacoma, for instance.
The Tacoma Mall extension that’s a wishlist item in ST4 compounds the problem. Again it bypasses downtown Tacoma. For a “regional growth center” that may turn out to be not much better than what’s there now or Totem Lake, with too much parking and wide streets and car orientation.
Rapid transit must go directly to walkable downtowns! That’s one of its basic purposes. So either treat downtown Tacoma properly, or don’t build a “Dallas thing” going only to Tacoma Dome and Tacoma Mall at all.
But even though Tacoma Dome Link is questionable and slow compared to typical rapid transit lines, it is relatively inexpensive due to straight flat wide public highway ROWs it can run on the surface in, and it’s the Pierce subarea’s highest priority, and Pierce has saved up a large down payment for it. So even though it’s questionable, it’s not worth putting a lot of effort into canceling it. The Pierce subarea can cancel it if it decides to or can’t afford it.
“Link should either go to downtown Tacoma and a major PT bus transfer point, or not beyond Federal Way at all. Terminating at Tacoma Dome station is the worst of both worlds.”
Of course I agree.
ST3 does free up planning money for an extension study to Tacoma Mall. There’s nothing apparently stopping a Pierce Board member to advance that study and include serving UWT or Downtown as part of it. There’s nothing blocking that ask, right? Frankly it would be worthwhile to make sure that the tracks that are being designed can be extended further west in the future anyway.
It appears to be several different ways to extend the line and yet there’s no conceptual plan or estimated cost on how to make that happen. Since ST has chosen a station site next to the parking garage and G Street (and far from Pacific Avenue) there is even greater need for a non-garage station at or near Pacific Ave.
This just in from ST: The DSTT closure March 21-22 is to replaced a cracked rail at Pioneer Square station, where currently has a slow order northbound. I experienced this slowness Saturday and wondered why.
Also, the westside 2 Line will be suspended March 18-22 to prepare for the full opening March 28. “2 Line trains will run a pre-simulated service scheduled between South Bellevue and Downtown Redmond.” That sounds like late-evening service will be suspended too.
@Ross Bleakney:
You say that taxes are too low compared to Scandinavian countries. Well, you are not a senior citizen like I am and on a fixed income and for me taxes are high and throw in that the cost of everything else keeps going up it is hard to keep up.
I know that your response will be something to the effect that I should move to an area where the cost of living is lower. That is easier said than done for someone who has lived in this area for some 60 years.
And keep in mind that one day you will be a senior citizen on a fixed income and you will find out what that is like.
Perhaps fixed incomes for retirees are the problem, not taxes?
Scandinavian countries have a larger social safety net, so you don’t have to spend as much of your personal income on necessities and insurance. That’s what the higher taxes are for: you pay a little more, and in return you get more economical services that also cover everyone, so that your neighbors aren’t falling through the cracks and the impacts on them won’t spill over to you.
Washington state has the most regressive tax structure in the US, so the tax burden falls more heavily on the poor than in other states. That’s because it depends so heavily on sales tax, and the poor spend the most of their income on necessities (partly to make up for the lack of social benefits). Now that the legislature has passed an income tax (although the governor hasn’t signed it), there’s a possibility for the tax system to become less regressive over time.
According to Metro, they will be implementing all-door boarding systemwide starting on March 28. https://kingcountymetro.blog/2026/03/12/king-county-metro-expands-bus-service-and-launches-systemwide-all-door-boarding-starting-march-28/
My observation is that rear door ORCA readers are still only partially rolled out. For instance, nearly every non-articulated coach has them already. As do some articulated coaches. For example buses whose ID numbers start with 8XXX seem to nearly all have rear door readers. But practically none of the buses whose ID numbers start with 69XX have them.
My main route is the 372, and less than 5% of buses on the route have a back door reader. It’s not feasible to have people enter in the back and swim upstream to the front to tap. So is Metro pretty much making the 372 (and other similar routes) fare free at the end of the month?
Not to mention how does this impact STX buses? They are operated by Metro. If people can enter the back door of a 372 along Bothell Way, then I’d think passengers would have an expectation of entering the back door of a 522 serving the same route.
This is a Metro policy, so it doesn’t apply to ST Express even though Metro operates it. ST Express stopped recognizing paper transfers years ago, while Metro still has them.
Almost all the Metro buses I’ve been on in the past year have ORCA readers at the rear doors, and I’ve been entering and tapping there whenever the rear doors are closer. Some drivers open the rear doors for entrees, others don’t, so I guess that will be the biggest change.
Does the 372 have the old kind of articulated buses with no middle door? I encounter those mostly on ST Express, where it seems like most of the buses don’t have a middle door so it’s infeasible if you’re sitting in front to walk to the back to exit, especially when the bus is moving and there are no handholds in the articulation area. These might have to wait until the buses are replaced. I imagine Metro will let people enter free if it’s announcing systemwide all-door boarding but it doesn’t have readers on all the doors. Most people aren’t dedicated transit fans, and will hear Metro’s marketing about all-door boarding and not understand the issues.