Reminders & Updates:

  • Downtown Transit Tunnel Closure Mar. 21-22: Link service between Capitol Hill to Stadium will be replaced by shuttle buses this weekend for scheduled maintenance.
  • Simulated 2 Line service from Lynnwood to Seattle is suspended until March 23.

Local Transit:

Land Use & Commentary:

This is an Open Thread. Comments may discuss any topic related to transit or land use. Uncivil comments will be moderated.

50 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: ST Board retreat”

  1. RE: the link to plans for the new OMF-S:

    Being designed by Siemens, these new light rail vehicles are set to be double the length of the existing Series 1 and 2 vehicles, a fact that will boost their passenger capacity by between 5% and 13%

    Can someone help me with the math here?

    2. They’re “open gangway” which means they’ll be able to put passengers in the otherwise-open space where cabs and train car connectors would be.

    3. I must be reading this wrong; double the length and only 10% more capacity. If the new light rail vehicles are set to be double the length of the existing 1 & 2 series vehicles does that mean they will be running 2 car trains instead of 4 car trains? That won’t work in Bellevue because they already scrapped the side of the tunnel with the existing cars. Any other minimum radius turns that will be an issue?

      They’ll have plenty of old stock to run on the 2 line but will that mess up the boarding and stop locations when you have a mix of old & new on the 1 Line north of CID?

      1. Each single Series 3 LRV has 10% more capacity compared to a 2-car Series 2 consist. They will have more articulations so they should have similar turning radius, though the Bellevue point is kind of moot because they will likely only run on the 1 Line anyway (only OMF South can store them)

      2. Wait… Trains have been scraping the Bellevue tunnel?? Would love to hear more info about that.

  2. ST needs to make it more clear that when simulated service is suspended, the 2 line goes back to ending before 10pm instead of almost 1am. About two weeks ago with the power issues I was stranded at 10:30pm with no way of getting back to Marymoor Village. No replacement shuttle, no other buses to Marymoor. I had to pay for an Uber to get home.

    This time is better since at least they mention “2 Line trains will follow the pre-simulated service schedule during the suspension” but last time there was absolutely no mention of this. If ST is publishing these late-night schedules (and they’re still what shows up on things like Google Maps), it needs to be extremely clear that this disruption is happening, or they need to adhere to the schedule, even if only on the eastside. I reached out to ST after I was stranded and they didn’t have a satisfying response, just pointing to the old schedule. Very disappointed with ST’s messaging.

    The experience also made me further question the decision to make the night owl eastside bus serve Bear Creek P&R instead of Marymoor Village Station. Why in the world is it doing this? Bear Creek should be shut down and any terminating buses rerouted to Marymoor instead! Bear Creek P&R is not in a useful location and the parking is dwarfed by the new garage. That land should be redeveloped.

    1. Man that really sucks! ST seems to think that it’s ok to just drop runs when they want.

      Relatedly, I’m miffed that the last 1 Line train to SE Seattle is going to move from 12:53 am to 12:05 am in two weeks. And the new touted overnight service will skip all the MLK stations served only by Route 106 (no service between 1:30 and 4:30). They seem willing to reduce service to SE Seattle with no announcement; another commenter just happened to notice it. God help us if 1 Line gets sudden early evening closures for maintenance.

      And I agree that Bear Creek is probably no longer needed for transit. Closing it is made more difficult as it appears to be owned by WSDOT or maybe Metro but not ST. And it may still be good for carpoolers (even though it’s way too big for just carpoolers). And ST 545 does end there.

      To me, all of this just points to an attitude that any transit service after 10 pm is “nice to have” rather than an attitude that when any service is published, it’s promised to the public and should be considered a “must have”.

    2. While the PDF reflects the simulated service schedule, the online slide-able version reflect’s today’s pre-simulation shorter schedule for the 2 Line.

      I suppose ST could have said up front that some days would run according to the shorter pre-simulation schedule, so check the online schedule for that day.

      1. Perhaps they took my angry email to heart. This one is also a planned outage vs an unplanned outage that was not communicated well.

      2. Have any of you submitted your concerns with documentation to ST customer service….and request a reply? These are legitimate complaints that have direct impacts on the customer experience.

      4. @Mike….email ST customer service and simply state your opinions/concerns regarding the aforementioned experience with the poor communication regarding the 2-Line and the need to route night owl service to Marymour instead of zebra Creek. The more feedback regarding a specific issue that is documented builds a case for action.

        Do you not submit feedback regarding service or issues to either Metro or Sound Transit using their online form at all?

      5. I thought by “documentation” you meant sending receipts and photos to prove you were stranded. That’s what’s a hassle and may not be convincing: you can send an Uber receipt, but ST can say that doesn’t prove you were trying to take Link that evening.

        I do send ST some service complaints, but I do it by email to ST’s contact address rather than a web form.

    3. Even if Bear Creek P&R is WSDOT’s decision to close, it is still Metro and ST’s decision to run buses there. There mere fact that a P&R exists does not create an obligation by transit to serve it with buses.

  3. Two stations — one with a hideous walkshed — for the Low-Low Price of only five billion dollars. Has the Second Avenue Subway been extended west?

    1. I’m actually starting to like the idea of Alaska becoming West Seattle’s version of 3rd Ave. Two stations on the outer edge of West Seattle’s island of urbanity, or one station in the middle of it. Hmm.

  4. Instead of funding a mosquito fleet, why not subsidize WSF operations more, and lower the walk-on fare?

    Why aren’t Bainbridge Island politicians encouraging more tourism through non-pedestrian-hostile fares?

    1. New car ferry boats are far too expensive. The mosquito fleet bill is to enable more services like Kitsap Transit’s fast ferries and the Water Taxi.

  5. In the Urbanist article about West Seattle, it summarizes the huge cost savings by eliminating rail track near the Junction. The big drawback is presented as making train reversals more stressful.

    It’s just one more reason why automation should be on the table for Link . And yet — although the preferred method of adding rail transit lines around the world — automation remains completely ignored in ST discussions.

    Party like it’s 1999, ST!!! You seem still stuck at the party of 27 years ago.

    1. https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/Report%20-%20Transit%20Operations%20Workstream%20Summary%20-%2003-18-26.pdf

      Al

      Driverless operations are specifically called out as a future possibility in the opportunities register for CBTC. All ST3 projects are being built with CBTC. It’s not a question of if but when for automation and it’s likely entirely contingent upon the grade separation of the RV, Bel-Red, and some of the stations with ped crossings on the 2 line.

      1. I think you may have a slightly too restrictive view of the possibilities partial automation offers. It is found in several places throughout the world; drivers board a station or so before they have to take over control and alight at that same station after they’ve entered automated territory traveling the other direction.

        Let’s consider Line 1 first, assuming full build-out of the system as planned, using standard Link cars with overhead power distribution. And let’s also assume that ST bites the bullet and puts the tracks on the ground next to Ballmer Yard between a newly “grounded” Smith Cove station and the bridge over the Ship Canal to reduce costs. This is sort of a “worst case” for Line 1 vis-a-vis “automatability” [if that’s a word]. Also assume that BAR is built.

        So, there is a need for drivers between the ramp from street level to structure along Martin Luther King Jr Blvd south of Rainier Beach and the northern terminus. They’re not really needed through DSTT2, but it wouldn’t make sense to have two separate driven segments over just seven miles. Also, since this assumes DSTT2 is built, the headway optimization that automation enables will not be necessary for this line.

        So, the driver takes the train out of the station southbound at Rainier Beach and as soon as the train ascends to the structure, they release control to the CBTC. It’s not likely that the driver can be ready to alight at BAR, but certainly by TIBS they should be at the door, ready for a break. TIBS has abundant operational space to provide a break room.

        The other direction, a driver boards at TIBS, moves to the operator cabin and takes control somewhere around BAR.

        Now, I grant that if Link were truncated at Federal Way the savings on operators between there and TIBS wouldn’t be that significant. But once Link is extended to Tacoma it would be.

        Line 2 doesn’t need drivers west of South Bellevue, but the transition to structure happens quite a way south of South Main, so it’s unlikely that drivers could be ready to alight at SoBel. However, the extra couple of minutes to Mercer Island should be enough. They could be out of the cabin and at the door ready to alight there reliably.

        Line 3 should be automated throughout, at least, south of Mariner, although that will require fencing the entire bus- and trackway everywhere south of the junction with Line 2 south of CID to SoDo. Holgate would have to have an over pass, but I think that’s already in the plan, and Lower Royal Brougham Way would have to be closed to cross traffic and some sort of pedestrian underpass provided to give folks on the “wrong side of the tracks” access to the platform on the opposite side.

        I hope ST would be willing to consider this hybrid automation, at least until the system gets so “hot” with trains that the ability of automation to optimize headways becomes necessary throughout.

      2. Tom

        There is no system in the world that runs this way. There are systems with ATO and streetrunning sections, but they require operators to be on board the entire trip. There is far, far too much variability in having an operator get on for a middle segment of a journey. What if the train operator isn’t present and a train is stalled in the station, causing cascading delays? There’s a reason systems don’t do this sort of thing even though the tech has been around since the 80s.

        Having operators plus ATO tightens up schedules and reduces slop, but doesn’t solve the budget issue at all.

    2. Yeah Al and you seem to party like it’s 1962.

      Seattle doesn’t need anymore gadgetbahns. If you want automation so bad, extend the Monorail to Ballard and West Seattle… then you’ll be partying like it’s 1997.

      1. Automation is clearly not a gadgetbahn, dude . It’s been around for several decades (Vancouver SkyTrain; SeaTac airport) and seems to be the most popular rail technology being built around the world.

  6. It is discouraging to see how eager Washington is to shovel money into expanding the highway between Portland and Vancouver. Even now that it has become fiscally absurd, we just won’t give up. Meanwhile, MAX to Vancouver is just a bonus that we might get around to if we can get federal money for it.

    1. see how eager Washington is to shovel money into expanding the highway

      It’s not so much a matter of expanding as replacing the existing bridge before it collapses. Right now they are pouring money into repairs of infrastructure that’s way past it’s design lifetime. Every 100 years of so you just have to replace bridges.

      1. Is there any sign that they will be focused on replacement instead of expansion (for the bridge over the Columbia)? If so, that would be great. I fear instead they will continue with the current plans which most certainly is a major expansion.

      2. Ross, yes. Just two days ago Ferguson and Kotek both stated that the project has been broken into phases, with bridge replacement being the first and modified a bit to include temporary connections to the existing roadway north and south of the river. That is mostly funded; I think if they do “Ready For MAX” [i.e. a busway with embedded rails (hopfully better than DSTT1’s)] they’re only about $300 million short. That gap can certainly be “bridged” [ha-ha] by extending the high-toll period. For a “MAX Now” it’s more like $800 million.

        The truth is that MAX isn’t going to be that much of a “game changer”. Downtown Portland is 50% empty. It’s like Brooklyn: “Nobody goes there any more”. A 24-7 BRT bridge, extending the bus-on-shoulder expresses across the bridge and upping the Oregon side HOV’s to 3+ and enforcing them would probably attract some real ridership on the expresses. They’d be a GREAT deal with $7-9 tolls. especially if they got real priority.

        And you may not have seen, but Oregon is pretty steely about “No new general purpose capacity” across the bridge itself. They’re OK with a pair of auxiliaries between Mill Plain and Marine Drive, but they want a pair of HOV lanes across the bridge in return. So there’ll be only three GP lanes including the auxiliaries.

        Now the fact that there will finally be breakdown lanes, all the lanes will be twelve foot Interstate standard, and the bridgehead merges will be replaced by the auxiliaries means that traffic will flow much more smoothly. And more than three lanes is wasted because there isn’t adequate collector/distributor capacity through North Portland for more.

    2. The current light rail plan between North Portland and Vancouver isn’t that good. It’d be like trying to serve Bellevue with the station in Spring District via the Rainier Velley line: not really that close to everything it should serve, and a wall created by the freeway for at least half the walkshed. The Interstate Avenue line is median running in the surface, and is great for local trips. It’s not something that’s great for longer trips.

      1. Exactly. Interstate Avenue is lined with apartments, and their residents do a pretty good job of keeping the Yellow Line full, as far as Martin Luther King. North of there ridership plummets, and the every fifteen minutes 60 bus is usually half full across the bridge.

  7. The meeting is still ongoing but for now they have three main approaches

    Approach 1:
    West Seattle: Alaskan junction without Avalon
    Ballard: Seattle center without slu
    Everett: built to Everett station
    Tacoma: built to Tacoma dome
    Kirkland and Issaquah: deferred

    Approach 2:
    West Seattle: deferred
    Ballard: smith cove without slu
    Everett: built to Everett station
    Tacoma: built to Tacoma dome
    Kirkland and Issaquah: built to South Kirkland/ Issaquah

    Approach 3:
    West Seattle: build to delridge
    Ballard: Seattle center without slu
    Everett: built to sw industrial center
    Tacoma: built to fife
    Kirkland and Issaquah: only initial phase

    1. Yeah it’s amazing how the executive staff reduces the options to three before the workshop.

      It’s not a very interactive workshop when choices are restricted to just three variations on the same technology and alignments.

      In contrast, LA MTA Sepulveda corridor looked at three different rail technologies and six alternatives — for just one corridor.

      https://stc-lametro.hub.arcgis.com/pages/alternatives2

      1. The scenarios are illustrative, not restrictive. Staff expect the Board to tell them to mix-and-match to create the final plan.

    3. I was there too. The board members aren’t taking it as three choices but as starting points to explore the impacts of different changes and compare alternatives. The approaches reflect three different philosophies: (1) finish the projects furthest along, (2) connect the most regional centers, (3) start the most projects now and split them into phases.

      E.g., West Seattle is far along in planning. Issaquah is a regional center.

      1 has the highest ridership (87% of full ST3) and travel time reduction (“medium”). 2 connects to the most jobs. 3 scores worst overall to me.

      1. By “changes” I mean individual i. It’s not just choose door number 1, 2, or 3.

    5. “Tacoma built to Fife”?????????? WTF!

      “Train 0.001 to the Puyallup Tribal Casino (The Crappy One) now leaving on Track 2. Allll Aboooard!”

      “Seattle Center without slu”.

      I gather you lower-cased it because it is clearly d e a d? Hasn’t anyone noticed the giant cluster of Biiiiiiiig buildings around Fifth and Battery? They’re a bit closer to the proposed SLU Station site than Denny Way. And the space between is ripe for more Biiiiig buildings. I guess the City can build that long-awaited Monorail station at Battery for them.

    6. All proposed shortenings of the Ballard line are fundamentally flawed. They keep an exorbitantly expensive second tunnel and build stations that are nearly redundant with an existing line. (Do we really needs stations on 3rd and 5th Avenue?) Simultaneously, they sacrifice a line that would have new stations in the parts of the city that need transit. It’s all of the worst and none of the best. Approaches 1-3 are unacceptable.

      1. It’s all of the worst and none of the best.

        Yes, exactly. It is worth considering what alternate plans would look like. Assume for a second that the original plan was this (with the extension to Ballard). An automated line from Ballard to Mount Baker via Westlake and First Hill. Great.

        Now assume you can’t build it all. It is pretty easy to see how you can scale it back and still get something very useful. For example, Smith Cove to Yesler Terrace. Obviously this isn’t ideal. But it avoids the expensive crossing of the ship canal. It provides great one-seat connections (Uptown to First Hill). Riders on the main line aren’t hurt by it — in fact many benefit from it. Riders coming from the north can easily just transfer to get to First Hill. Riders from Ballard actually get something out of it other than an all-day Metro 15. They have a nice transfer to First Hill (something they don’t have right now). So do folks coming from Aurora — suddenly that station by the highway adds a lot of value. So you’ve connected northeast, north and northwest Seattle with First Hill in a way that makes their trip dramatically faster.

        In contrast a line from Smith Cove to the existing main line doesn’t offer that kind of improvement. If you are going to Uptown from Ballard it is probably slower than the existing D (because of the transfer). If you are going to Denny you might as well take the 8 (it might be faster, given the surface transfer). To be fair, there are some walk-up riders. Uptown to Westlake is better than taking the monorail but Seattle Center to Westlake is not. Where you really add value is Uptown to the south end of downtown (or Rainier Valley/SeaTac). You avoid the transfer using the monorail (although you could probably improve that transfer for billions less). Denny to the other end of downtown might as well occur with a bus, especially if the bus is running on a transit mall and coming more often (which is pretty much a given on both counts). The train adds some value — just not a lot.

        Meanwhile, a lot of people have a worse trip. UW to SeaTac requires a transfer. Rainier Valley to Northgate — you need a transfer. Meanwhile, the train isn’t even that frequent. To make the train more frequent you have to bury the line in Rainier Valley (this would also make it faster). But there is no money for that. They spent it all on a second tunnel that isn’t even needed.

  8. Twenty-five years ago, the Bogotá TransMileno network was being extolled as the future of transit service. Much of the local opposition to light rail held up the TransMileno model as the shining exemplar of what we should be building in Seattle. Cheaper and more efficient than a wasteful light rail system!

    I’ve been to Bogotá a number of times and, like Walker, I can’t decipher the transit system there. But Bogotá is expanding its system with rail lines–not more BRT routes.

    Unfortunately, building a grid-based bus system in Bogotá will be difficult due to the hardened infrastructure of the TransMileno lines. Many lines are center running in the middle of 8+ lane roads that require navigating through a labyrinth of concrete and steel suspended above the road to get from the cage-like station to the sidewalk. Then, to have to repeat the process again to transfer to a perpendicular line will be very time consuming and physically exhausting. The one-seat ride may not be best practice in transit planning; but in Bogotá, it may be a necessity. I’m thankful that the “BRT is better” mindset didn’t win the day in Seattle.

    1. The bogota brt system was right for bogota. If they had built the lrt system instead they would have had only one light rail line and all the other buses on the 20 other avenues stuck in traffic. They only have enough money to build 2 lines so far.

      Secondly labor costs are lot cheaper (proportionally) in South America so having lots of brt drivers wasn’t as large of a concern.

      > Bogotá TransMileno network was being extolled as the future of transit service.

      Uhh I mean people weren’t completely wrong brt is actually what is happening for most medium sized American cities. Though of course a bit different with the center running avenue brt.

      The pulse brt in Richmond Va; van ness brt in sf, Albuquerque brt etc… The articulated buses solved the lower capacity of buses versus trams/short light rail. And it matched the capacity needed by medium sized American cities.

      > I’m thankful that the “BRT is better” mindset didn’t win the day in Seattle.

      I agree Seattle metro areas needed light rail but also many other corridors can use brt funding. Especially when one light rail station costs a billion dollars and it could fund 10 rapidrides

      1. Bogotá is a huge and growing metropolis and they needed to build transportation fast, so BRT was the right call. People definitely ride the TranMileno lines, too. It’s impressive to watch a steady stream of double articulated buses–crush loaded–pass by as you sit stuck in Bogotá’s perpetual gridlock. The 10-mile trip from Virrey, where Walker seemed to be centered, to the airport can take more than an hour during peak periods.

    2. I’m thankful that the “BRT is better” mindset didn’t win the day in Seattle.

      “BRT is better” is just as stupid as “rail is better”. It is like saying a chainsaw is better. Not if you are trying to prune a tree. Every tool has its role.

      Just to back up here: like rail, BRT can take many forms. The main advantage of rail is capacity and potential automation. The main advantage of buses is that there is so much existing infrastructure it can use. Other than that, everything else is quite similar. It comes down to stops, lines, infrastructure and cost. The infrastructure is on a spectrum. Ideally you are 100% grade-separated. This means the buses or trains don’t have to deal with any automobile (or pedestrian) traffic. But this tends to be very expensive. That is why there are so many systems (including ours) where that isn’t the case. It really gets down to the particulars. This is the case with bridge openings as well. If the train rarely gets delayed because of a bridge opening then it doesn’t really matter. On the other hand, if a train slogs through the street (like in San Fransisco) it is a big deal.

      The terminology is just a generality — like calling it a creek instead of a river. The distinctions are often arbitrary. Technically, the term “light rail” refers to the type of train. But our system would operate the exact same way if it was heavy rail. The term can also mean a system (like ours) that is a mix of trains dealing with traffic and trains running grade-separated. But that term can be very misleading. Our system is a lot more like BART than it is Muni. Likewise, the term “BRT” can mean a bunch of different things. Bogota is different than Brisbane which is different than most of the systems in the U. S. called “BRT”.

      The Bogota model would probably only work on a handful of streets in Seattle — Aurora being one of them. There has been a reluctance to “take lanes” outside of the city itself. This pushes up the cost of these projects. Stride 3 will cost over half a billion dollars (not counting the buses themselves) and the buses won’t run in the center lane. The Tacoma project got cancelled because of cost overruns. Thus one of the key advantages (existing infrastructure) gets minimized. Fortunately, Seattle has been willing to take lanes. They may be curbside and thus not as good as the ones on Madison, but it can push the bus towards the positive end of the spectrum a great deal.

      Seattle adopted the Brisbane BRT model well before we had Link. It worked quite well, even though it was somewhat limited. Your suggestion (that Seattle should be happy it went with rail) requires a lot of conjecture. What would the transit system look like if Seattle invested in bus infrastructure instead?

      It would probably be a mix of both models (red paint and tunnels). It is not hard to imagine a mix of BAT and bus lanes all over the city. You would also change HOV2 to HOV3. It is trickier to provide grade separation. Start with the “easy stuff”. Make the existing infrastructure better. Add overpasses on the SoDo Busway to separate it from cross streets. Connect I-5 HOV with the SoDo Busway. Connect West Seattle to the SoDo Busway (via Spokane Street Viaduct). Run an express from the Downtown Bellevue TC that skips Bellevue Way (the ramps are already there). That pretty much covers the areas to the south and east. A bus could leave Tacoma, Bellevue or West Seattle and not encounter cross traffic or congestion before running through downtown (similar to Brisbane).

      To the north it would require more work. You would have to make a branch to serve Ballard and Aurora. While the existing bus tunnel was nowhere near capacity, at some point it makes sense to build a second tunnel. The second tunnel also enables you to get extra coverage. So build the WSTT but with a stop on First Hill. Have center running buses on Aurora and 15th/Elliott (to Ballard). So now you have a bus from West Seattle not encountering any traffic lights until Market (unless the bridge goes up).

      The tricky part is to the northeast. This is where Link provides the most value. It is where a subway line makes the most sense and has always made the most sense. You can build a bus tunnel instead of a subway line but the dynamic is different. But if we insist on sticking with buses it could work. Extend the bus tunnel to the U-District. At that point the main issue is connecting to the freeway buses. Can we convert the express lanes (or main line) to provide HOV lanes the whole way? It might be hard. It might be better to just continue it as a tunnel, all the way to Northgate. You could take more or less the same path. I’m not sure where all the entrances to the tunnel would be. Maybe the U-District and I-5/Northgate would be sufficient to the north. This means the 522 could continue to downtown, but via the U-District. At that point we would have spent a lot of money but we would probably have a better system than we have now.

      But again, I’m not suggesting it would be best if we just built BRT. The key is picking the right mode and more importantly, what you do with it. We could easily have made more mistakes with a BRT system than we’ve made with our rail system (and that is saying a lot).

    1. Mark, they’re in the process of studying fare gates and new fare enforcement strategies. Also, they’ve been enforcing fares in my experience riding Link for the last couple of years.

  10. It’s been a long day and I’m cranky, so I’ll rant a bit about that New York Times article if you guys don’t mind…

    I used to read that paper online back in the day. I’m older now, and wiser, so I can call out the pattern they like to use with these articles, which announce real and pressing structural problems in modern America, then completely trivialize them by only including quotes from sufferers who are so stupid, they make the average NY Times reader feel smugly superior. A 24-year-old with an $850 monthly car payment who went $80,000 in debt before she decided to do something about it?? This isn’t an identifiable victim to 99.9% of the readers of the NYT – even counting ones with a guest link!

    If this was any sort of a serious expose, they’d be talking about how expensive the used car market got around 2020, or about why there are no new cars for sale under $30,000, or describing in detail how difficult it is for the average American with the average living arrangements to do *anything* without a car. No 24-year-old idiot who can afford to get $80,000 in debt is any sort of a societal problem. The growing number of people who struggle to afford access to jobs and grocery stores as they are too far away and lack transit access from the housing they live in, however, are a different matter. Interviewing some people in economic distress who chose to keep their car payment instead of their rent payment and are now sleeping in the car might have been a nice touch. If they were even slightly interested in muck-racking, they could note how much a car would cost if you bought it in, say, India… why not allow *those* across the border? Doesn’t capitalism need competition??

    Anyway. That stupid paper is so obviously “Read me so that you can feel completely comfortable and self-satisfied with the way things are, and never actually notice the guillotine until it slices your neck” that it piqued me today. Time to go back to not reading it again for another decade!

Comments are closed.