Transit headlines:
- The Seattle Times’ ($) transportation reporters offered two opposing perspectives on Saturday’s opening of the full 2 Line: Lindblom directly questioned whether Sound Transit is even capable of reliably operating the line on Friday, while DeShais called the project audacious, unique, and bold on Sunday.
- Sound Transit’s “plausible” scenarios for ST3 all exclude finishing the Ballard Link Extension, and three more takeaways from last week’s Board retreat (The Urbanist)
- 55mph freeway speed limits helped reduce gas consumption during the 1970s Oil Crisis, and it might be time to bring it back (Paul Krugman).
- Every $0.50 increase in fuel costs adds $12,500 to Metro’s daily expenses, and other impacts of the recent spike in oil prices (The Seattle Times, $).
- Pioneer Square’s historic preservation committee opposes SDOT’s plan for more bike and scooter corrals (PubliCola), apparently preferring the current chaos.
- Construction of RapidRide I (upgrading Route 160) broke ground last week (The Urbanist)
- SDOT selected three locales across Seattle where it will focus early efforts toward creating “Low-Pollution Neighborhoods”: Lake City, Capitol Hill, and Georgetown/South Park (SDOT Blog).
- It’s weird that truncating the Ballard Link Extension is on the table but revisiting the choices which made unaffordable is off the table (Seattle Bike Blog).
- Ambiguous definitions of “frequent transit stop” lead to inconsistent rules regarding transit-oriented development (StreetsBlog Cal).
- Lime is retrofitting its scooters with cameras which will use AI to detect if the scooter is being ridden on the sidewalk (The Seattle Times, $).
This is an Open Thread. Comments may discuss any topic related to transit or land use. Uncivil comments will be moderated.
Metro is reporting far fewer trip cancellations, and sometimes restoring the canceled trips. Is this a sign that the driver shortage is over?
Almost, it should be over next year: https://seattletransitblog.com/2026/03/03/metro-operator-shortage-to-end-next-year/
I just experienced a cancelled route 44 trip yesterday, in the middle of rush hour, so I would not get my hopes up.
“55mph freeway speed limits helped reduce gas consumption during the 1970s Oil Crisis, and it might be time to bring it back (Paul Krugman).”
Completely ludicrous idea. Speed limits should be higher if anything. Look at Germany for example.
Firstly, most people don’t follow speed limits. Reducing it to 55 won’t change a thing.
Secondly, the better way to reduce gas consumption and increase transit use is to…
*Shocker*
Add more transit. And make transit faster.
I know this is clear cope because Link only runs at 56 mph. That’s Link’s problem. Increase its top speed and replace the trains with a faster automated unit (and update infrastructure where necessary). Or build out more commuter rail. Slowing down cars intentionally to make transit competitive won’t change anything. You can slow down cars if that change actually speeds up transit. But this change doesn’t speed up transit at all. So If anything it spoils the reputation of transit and transit advocacy.
yesss increase the speed limit to make driving even more dangerous and stressful than it already is so people are more likely to switch to transit I like your thinking!
It’s actually very safe to drive at 70-80 mph when there is light or nonexistent traffic, on most of our intersections.
Most accidents are caused by excessive *relative speed* .. people driving 80+ when most are going under 60… Or people driving 100+ when most are going under 80, etc.
Or more often the usual suspects: drunk and distracted drivers. If everyone is driving 70-80, which is often the case on many highways, it’s not risky at all when the weather is clear. If it’s raining and there is hydroplaning, that’s different but 60-65 is still quite reasonable. Variable speed limits are in place around the state on our freeways.
Even freeway running buses go comfortably at 68 mph. It’s not dangerous.
“yesss increase the speed limit to make driving even more dangerous and stressful than it already is so people are more likely to switch to transit I like your thinking!”
No, just no. That’s a really bad idea.
SKR, of course traveling at 70-80 mph is perfectly safe for the driver until the quickly-moving car meets an immobile object.
SDGK, that’s obvious sarcasm.
It is very dangerous, you’re just extremely used to it.
Speed limits being lowered have provable safety improvements. Montana comes to mind for this. Fast speeds are inherently dangerous, they give less time to react, lower the ability of drivers to control their automobiles, put more stress on tires and brakes, and overall are exponentially deadlier in the event of a crash.
“It’s actually very safe to drive at 70-80 mph when there is light or nonexistent traffic, on most of our intersections.”
That’s mostly true for most highways, but like you said is only a drawback for delinquent drivers. Though think of it this way:
1. If you’re driving really fast on the freeway is there a chance you would crash or drift off the road? Is there a chance that there will be racing and people will go really fast that they harass other cars?
2. Will the reputation of highways in the state go from a “fast”, overrated way to commute to a place for drifters and delinquents to have their “illegal” fun?
3. Will this encourage speeding? Will this cause problems in legislation? How will drunk drivers and speeders be affected?
Ian, WSDOT should really have a word with you on your views on speed limits.
“SKR, of course traveling at 70-80 mph is perfectly safe for the driver until the quickly-moving car meets an immobile object.”
Even if you individually choose to drive at the speed limit, everyone else will not. And the police can’t pull over everybody.
If you’re driving at 55 and get hit by someone going 80, you’re going to be the one hurt the most. Different story if both were going 80 (though it’d still be a bad accident as well).
That’s why I said – intentionally reducing the speed limit won’t actually change anything. People will still speed and people will still avoid transit.
So the goal should be speeding up the transit and expanding access.
Similarly, the country struggles to ban things on both sides of the political aisle… For example some Republicans try to ban abortion or transgender sports. While Democrats try to ban guns or fracking. Of course different people have different opinions, and I also strongly disagree – but the key takeaway is that banning something won’t sit well with the people even if you think you have a “good” or “moral” reason to do so. Because people have different moral compasses and priorities.
So instead, if you want to reduce something you should find ways to actually make impact and systematic improvements… Instead of forcing people to abide by more rules or bans that they won’t follow or protest against. That’s my point.
I’d gladly reduce car speed limits if that is politically feasible. But it’s not.
I’m also very much for people driving at slower speeds if that means they drive in a safer manner.
The speed is one factor but there also many more factors that go into crashes… That tend to be related to speed
One is aggressive driving. People who speed tend to be more aggressive. Lowering the speed limit doesn’t eliminate those kinds of drivers.
Second is tailgating and poor spacing. People like to push up right against behind a vehicle instead of leaving spacing. A good driver intentionally moves slower to leave adequate space to the side and in front of them. This allows for a clean and safe zipper pattern and also reduces traffic congestion. It also allows people to merge without slowing down traffic. Most people don’t follow this however.
The speed differential is the last issue. When people are going at different speeds, they are more likely to miss someone in their blind spot or miss sudden slowdowns in front of them.
With the adoption of automated vehicles, this will change greatly and allow for safe driving even at very high speeds. It still won’t solve the traffic problem due to the natural low capacity of intersections and parking/dropoff areas though. That’s why transit is still a worthwhile investment.
South King Resident good to know you think the deadliest stretches of road in the state should have a higher speed limit.
https://seattleinjurylaw.com/study-the-deadliest-road-stretches-in-washington/
The probability of death, disfigurement, or debilitating injury grows with higher speed at impact. Such consequences double for every 10 mph over.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/think.pdf
800 deaths per year and 3400 injuries on Washington roads isn’t high enough for you?
https://wsdot.wa.gov/about/data/gray-notebook/gnbhome/safety/highwaysafety/totalfatalinjury.htm
It’s high. That’s why I support transit.
Do you think if you get into power, and suddenly force everyone to go at 45 mph on freeways, they will be happy with you?
Instead you could solve the root cause by reducing car lanes and adding bus lanes. That’d also slow down cars as a byproduct.
Why reduce the speed without taking action to add transit options to make up for it?
You also have to support more police pulling people over too….which I’m not sure people on here support.
I would be glad if we pulled over more speeders and HOV violators. But the state has reduced their crackdown of this in S King County because they think it may be discriminatory.
I see cop cars along I-90 catching speeders and HOV violators….on a largely empty freeway. But zero action on that in S King County.
Enforcement goes a longer way than random rules. But even better, just give people a reason to ditch their car. There easily can.
“It’s actually very safe to drive at 70-80 mph when there is light or nonexistent traffic, on most of our intersections.”
Statistically, not many are driving that fast, that’s why most crashes don’t occur at that speed range. That doesn’t mean it is less dangerous. 70-80mph is definitely more dangerous. The way how you look at it is to categorize crashes by speed of incident and see the percentage of fatal and serious injury crash involved.
SKR stop straw manning me you’re the one who brought up RAISING the speed limit based on your *vibes*. I responded with statistics that this is a terrible idea. I never said anything about reducing it.
I’m responding to the article that said to reduce it… Not to you specifically.
But anyways it’s also false that most people don’t go 70-80.
I go 60 on most freeways and almost everyone passes me or gets mad behind me. I’d rather everyone followed the speed limit and maintained proper distance, but that’d be more likely if the speed limit was higher. That’d also have truly excessive speeders stand out. Currently the ones getting pulled over are the gullible people going 65 on the right lane behind every other car, not people going 85 in the left lane.
If you go speed limit on an HOV lane, even a Metro or ST bus will push you. Many of them want to go 60-70 mph instead.
That’s just the reality.
Another good reason to turn down higher speed limits is that some cars just don’t have the capacity to be running very fast.
@South King Resident
You moved the goalpost. Driving at a higher speed may (or may not) be perfectly safe but it is likely NOT more fuel efficient, which was the original point of lower the speed limit in the 1970s – to reduce fuel use. Did you realize the point you were responding to? (The whole Krugman article is about fuel consumption.)
Now, if you want to argue that cars today may be able to be just as fuel efficient at 65 as cars in the 1970s were at 55, that might be an argument. (Of course, there should be some data to back that up.) But that wasn’t the premise you were responding to.
To summarize, the original point you replied to was concerning fuel efficiency, NOT safety.
Transit is even more fuel efficient. Why reduce speed limits? I’d rather the freeway express buses operate up to 68 mph like they do today.
There are much better ways to save gas than reducing the speed limit. I generally like Krugman’s opinions, but lowering the speed limit to save gasoline is a ridiculous proposal. Advocating for better electric car infrastructure would be much wiser and would save more gas than a lower speed limit. Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait a few years before renewables become a great idea again.
But how can we reduce the number of road fatalities? That’s a better question and it actually has a simple answer. Half of all people who died in automobile accidents in the United States in 2024 weren’t wearing seat belts at the time of the accident. I don’t want to argue that 20,000 road deaths is a palatable number, but if reducing the number of deaths is the paramount concern, enforcing seat belt laws might save up to 20,000 lives a year. Lowering the speed limit wouldn’t save nearly as many lives.
I wouldn’t reduce the speed limits to reduce fuel consumption. That was an extremely unpopular thing back in the day and there are much better ways to deal with the problem. CAFE standards have helped and as people have mentioned, improving transit also helps.
But at the same time, we shouldn’t increase the speed limits either. In extremely desolate areas it might be OK, but in most of the country it would lead to more deaths. From NHTSA:
Roadways are designed for specific operational purposes, but changes in land development and roadside context can cause discrepancies between the intended purpose of a roadway and its actual function. For example, higher speeds tend to be anticipated in rural contexts, but as land adjacent to rural or suburban roadways are developed to provide more access to residential or commercial facilities (or to accommodate the needs of other kinds of road users), the originally intended operating speed on the roadway may no longer be appropriate (Stamatiadis et al., 2018). The posted speed limits and the actual operating characteristics of the road—as indicated to drivers by the road profile, the roadside development, and the presence of other road users—both influence perception of appropriate or safe driving speed (when traffic density isn’t controlling). These perceptions and preferred speed may differ from actual speed limits (Goldenbeld & van Schagen, 2007; Lee et al., 2017; Mannering, 2009; Yannis et al., 2013). Although speeding-related fatalities are highest on urban, non-interstate roads (NCSA, 2022), drivers also tend to wish for higher speed limits in such areas (Yannis et al., 2013), and frequently do not comply with lower urban speed limits.
So if anything they should keep the same speed limits but enforce the limits more vigorously, especially in more urban areas. Maybe they should allow drivers to go 80 mph in rural Montana but not in Puget Sound.
Another good source for driving safety information is the IIHS. They used to have a nice print magazine but now it is an online newsletter (with articles like this).
The “prohibition” (authoritative) crowd has never succeeded in American history.
Address the root cause instead of trying to take shortcuts. The same should be said for the insane gas tax and climate acts in our state, driving up gas costs significantly. The emissions aren’t going down in our state either.
Some say Seattle isn’t stealing money from the suburbs and rural areas. They are, from gas money. And we have to use gas since we don’t have transit. So thousands of dollars are being stolen from us every year. And don’t forget tabs as well.
> Some say Seattle isn’t stealing money from the suburbs and rural areas. They are, from gas money. […] And don’t forget tabs as well.
This is just wrong at every level. Seattle is a net tax exporter at the state level. Seattle effectively subsidizes everyone else’s King County Metro service hours, and pays more for systemwide Sound Transit costs than anywhere else. You keep trying to find some way that Seattle is “stealing” rural and suburban money, but basically no matter how you slice it, it’s Seattle that subsidizes everyone else.
For what its worth, this is quite structural: the land use and development patterns of suburbs are not sustainable financially or environmentally. Your suburb would not exist without Seattle, but Seattle would be just fine without your suburb.
Seattle received 36.6% of the platform hours in 2024. On the other hand, Seattle contributes 39%
Who knew sales tax is the only driver of transit funding? I literally just mentioned car tabs and gas tax. That disproportionately affects suburbs. Hundreds or thousands of dollars per person per year.
Gas tax funds roads. It does not fund transit. A portion of the car tab money does fund transit, but that portion is higher in Seattle than the rest of the county.
Are you sure?
Through the “Move Ahead Washington” package, CCA revenue supports King County Metro operations, free youth fares (under 18), and zero-emission bus infrastructure, with $137 million for transit among top projects in FY2024.
“ I literally just mentioned car tabs and gas tax. That disproportionately affects suburbs. Hundreds or thousands of dollars per person per year.”
Trips have two end points. One is usually the home end. Home end is where car tabs get mostly assessed. Many trips from home (except for Seattle residents) often cross city limits — so it’s not accurate to portray that those funds should be fully allocated to the city where tabs are paid.
Metro does not collect on car tabs. Sound Transit does, and City of Seattle does as it’s passed onto Metro to supplement service in the City.
On a per capita basis, Seattle will have 18 Link stations for 800K residents by the end of summer. Bellevue has 6 stations for 160K residents or 20% of Seattle’s population. Redmond has 4 stations for 80K residents or 10% of Seattle’s population. Shoreline has 2 stations for 60K residents or 7% of Seattle’s population. Those ST tabs a benefitting other cities more than Seattle on this metric.
It does fund transit infrastructure. The HOV lanes that get buses out of the GP lanes came from gas tax (and a lesser extent tolls). Working now on a project in Newcastle where concrete pads are being added at more bus stops to keep the road from being destroyed. They aren’t billing Metro.
What do gas taxes have to do with Metro?
Free youth fares are a statewide policy, and the state compensates agencies for the cost. I think emissions free buses is also a statewide policy, although the deadline was relaxed because battery bus quality isn’t there yet and the agencies don’t have enough money for a full battery bus upgrade now without severe route cuts.
The ST taxing region is very poorly drawn, especially if you live on the border.
They just included everyone in the populous areas, even if they don’t even have a single Metro bus route. In North East Kent, it’s so egregious there isn’t a single bus nearby most of the neighborhoods. The nearest bus route (160) is several miles away. And no P&R either except at Kent Station (which you have to backtrack south to reach), or at S Renton P&R. Why are they even being taxed? Even if you live in the north in Renton, Route 102/148/160 barely connects to any ST service. The transfer wait time to the 560/566 is 15+ mins, and there is no light rail connectivity except on the 101/102 all the way up at SODO
So yes, it’s plain robbery. They should only tax those who actually benefits from the service. They’re taking advantage of the fact that tens of thousands of people live in these suburbs east of the freeways. As for voting, you didn’t get a say in being in the region. Everyone voted for it together….
“ The ST taxing region is very poorly drawn, especially if you live on the border.”
It’s closer than Orting!
I do think you have a valid point. I’ve long felt that the new Sounder garages are being used by people that don’t live in the district like riders from Covington. I actually think ST should send a decal to anyone paying the car tabs so they can then charge for parking when a car doesn’t have that decal.
And east Kent does have awful service. But that’s KC Metro’s failure rather than ST’s. In Metro’s defense, there is a sea of single family residential that has terrible street connectivity so it is hard to serve.
It’s just one more example of the awkward setup between KCM and ST. Most US cities have one primary transit operator, with other ones typically special cases. With our region, both have strong ridership within the core city (Seattle) and many of the suburbs. Plus KCM runs service for ST, adding even more confusion.
“They’re taking advantage of the fact that tens of thousands of people live in these suburbs east of the freeways.”
That’s not many people. It’s less than the U-District. That’s a corollary of low density: there aren’t that many voters per square mile.
The ST district ends between Kent and Covington. Maybe it should have included Covington and Maple Valley given their growth.
The ST boundaries are tightest in Snohomish County, medium in King County, and loosest in Pierce County.
Snohomish leaves out Marysville, Lake Stevens, Monroe, Snohomish (city), and Maltby.
The King boundary ends at Woodinville, Redmond, Issaquah. Renton, Kent, and Auburn. That’s consistent with the largest cities and planned regional centers. The main ones out are Covington and Maple Valley, which are small, and Snoqualmie and Duvall that are meant to be rural areas.
The Pierce boundary gobbles up tons of southeast exurban land like Spanaway, Bonney Lake, Orting, Sumner, Du Pont. It’s an excuse for ST-subsidized sprawl that will be mostly houses and strip malls. The fact that Pierce has it and Snohomish and King don’t suggests that Pierce officials were especially savvy and cynical in influencing the boundary.
“In Metro’s defense, there is a sea of single family residential that has terrible street connectivity so it is hard to serve.”
That’s true but there are still obvious main roads that could use service. In Bellevue and other cities, there are routes in the middle of nowhere on random streets. And there are streets with more apartments, and there are high schools and community colleges that need transit access.
To bump ridership from people lazy to walk, Metro can just find a small church or empty parking lot and try to get it allocated as a P&R. That’d keep them out of the ST parking garages. Really ST shouldn’t even have parking, it’s a bit ridiculous. Park and rides should be found in each neighborhood, you should either get dropped by a local bus (or by a carpool/ Metro Flex) at an ST station.
For whatever parking we already built, make it paid or permit based.
At minimum you should be able to walk to a route in 10 minutes.
“In Metro’s defense, there is a sea of single family residential that has terrible street connectivity so it is hard to serve.”
Metro Connects clearly identified multiple routes that would be valuable to add in that area. Including some that already exists and urgently need service increases.
There used to be service there through peak routes until it got deleted and never brought back. At least they could have brought back a truncated version to Kent Station… Or hopefully when Stride opens they add more connections to S Renton and Rainier Beach Station.
I really think they could’ve used Rapid Ride I to add red paint to MLK and extend it as an express to Rainier Beach as well. That way other routes like the 101 can take advantage of it as well and skip traffic around that intersection.
I’d gladly say that Fairwood 102 should lose its direct Seattle trip..and even the Renton 101 too. For a light rail connection at Rainier Beach. If that means increased all day / weekend service and coverage… And reliable trip times.
For Seattle trips I think Renton primarily needs more service on the 101. I think through-routing it with the 105 for every other trip and truncating it at the TC otherwise would save enough service hours to run it all day at 15 minutes. For reference it spends 10-15% of its time travelling from Renton TC to South Renton P+R; that could instead be 10-15% more trips to Seattle
Most of the time the light rail from Rainier Beach is just as fast (or even faster) than the 101. So why send it to Seattle? The only people losing out are people who need to get right next to one of the downtown steps which I don’t think is common and it mostly follows light rail
But if S Renton P&R loses downtown service (under your proposal), it should receive a light rail connection or added 102 service to Seattle. It’s a future Stride station so it needs to remain connected.
@South King — You are ignoring the basics of the ridership/coverage situation. Jarrett Walker wrote a great article about the subject and I’ll quite a section about ridership:
A transit agency pursuing only a ridership goal would focus service on the streets where there are large numbers of people, where walking to transit stops is easy, and where the straight routes feel direct and fast to customers. Because service is concentrated into fewer routes, frequency is high and a bus is always coming soon.
A network designed for ridership would not go to many parts of the city.
(emphasis mine)
Most agencies spend some effort on both ridership and coverage. But the efforts for ridership inevitably lead to more service in urban areas. Simply put, a lot of suburban areas have less transit because the agency is focusing at least some of its efforts on serving more people.
If you’re taking about service to Enumclaw, that’s one situation.
Renton and Kent aren’t “wastelands” – I have explained there are tens of thousands of people to the East of them. The cities have nearly 250k people combined, and it’s well distributed. Coverage is absolutely necessary.
Route 160 has very high ridership for a reason.
The current areas that the 101 serves don’t have many people either. It’s an illusion of density. More people live in the hills of Renton.
Ridership *rates* on route 105, 160, 102 are equivalent or even much higher.
The 101/150 are long articulated buses running all day and night mostly empty outside of peak. That’s why coverage makes more sense in this situation.
Fairwood alone (one tiny area) has 20k people. This doesn’t include East Kent or Renton Highlands or Benson Hill. That’s equivalent to some of these “cities” in the North that gets light rail and better bus service.
@South King Resident
It would be a much faster ride to downtown via the existing path of the 101 versus transferring to Link. From Renton TC to CID it’s something like 25-35 minutes via the 101 versus 40-50 minutes via a theoretical MLK bus to Link.
I don’t think very many riders would be transferring from Stride to the 101; it’d be better to just ride Stride to TIBS and take Link from there.
@SKR
Express-style service to Seattle (and to a lesser extent Bellevue) is important but the reality is that the bulk of transit ridership is for local trips. Local routes like the F, 106, and 160 are standout performers; ridership on the 101/102 is a tier below that, and the 148 is a fairly weak performer. See the link below for the data.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2026/02/20/rentons-transit-center-moves-toward-i-405/
You just contradicted yourself… The 101 is faster than Link. But it’s better to Stride to TIBS and take Link ….. ?
If we’re going to through route, I would send half of the 101s as a through routed 105 skipping the P&R and Stride. And the remaining 101s come from S Renton P&R maybe some trips as a 102.
Honestly I don’t think it needs to be overly complicated, with a separate express to Seattle from every corner of the city. I think the best network would be roughly: a frequent express to Seattle through a relatively dense corridor of Renton (I’d suggest the 101-105), a frequent express to Bellevue (Stride), and frequent local radial routes that pass through both corridors (F, 240, 160, etc).
Then how do you get to Seattle from South Renton? You just can’t anymore? All of those local routes you mentioned transfer at S Renton, not at the old Renton TC.
148 is a low performer because it’s useless. It’s through routed with the 107 and runs 15-20 min late all day. And it doesn’t serve anywhere particularly useful and runs way too infrequent. Most of the riders are homeless who don’t even tap.
And ST already locked in the new TC location. They’re going to make S Renton the center of attention now.
If anything you’d hope they keep the existing 101 because most likely they’re going to prioritize S Renton now for service.
That’s why the best outcome is a 105-101 through route every 20 mins interlined, with the existing 101 from S Renton coming every 30 mins. That gives 10-15 mins service to the existing TC. And then bump up 102 service during peak especially with more later morning and later evening trips.
@SKR
That was poorly phrased, my point was that very few riders are going to be riding Stride to the 101. If they are already on Stride, they should just continue to TIBS. Otherwise, if they are driving to the P+R they should just drive to Renton TC instead; if they are transferring from another route, they should transfer at Renton TC instead of S Renton.
There is a major tradeoff to adding additional routes: the more express service is run to Seattle, the less frequently it can run. The reason the 101 cannot run 15 minutes all day is because it deviates to serve S Renton. If you add trips to the 102, then the 101 will run even less often
@SKR
Metro is not going to eliminate service to the downtown Renton TC. The most likely outcome is that the F and I continue to serve Renton TC, and at least the 240 will be extended through the downtown TC to S Renton.
But why? You just need to through route them. I’m already proposing halving the number of 101 trips going to S Renton and sending them to Renton Highlands instead. The 105 adds no extra distance/traffic, and can be reliably through routed.
That extra time can be used to improve service directly from S Renton during peak.
@SKR
It’s simply because it takes time to drive from Renton TC to S Renton and back again. That time must be paid for by Metro.
If we could redesign the 101, it could all day from 6 AM to 7 PM at 15 minute frequency if we saved the driver time it takes to get to/from S Renton. Right now it runs at 20-30 minute frequency for a decent amount of that time period.
Of course there’s always the option to get more service hours (for example by raising additional taxes). But in that scenario, would you rather have the 101 run at 12 minute frequency from Renton TC, or 15 minute frequency and also serve S Renton?
Metro has pretty much revisited most of the county outside of the large area between Downtown/ Central Seattle, Tukwila and Renton/East Kent in the past five years. There probably needs to be a focused restructuring of the area’s bus routes to improve speed and connectivity. The new Renton TC opens in 2028, so that effort would seem timely to pursue in the next year!
It’s really too bad that the funds for BAR (or Allentown) Link infill station can’t be spent in other ways — especially at Rainier Beach to make it easier to reverse buses there. The subarea bean counting makes it difficult as BAR station (and Kent and Tukwila) is in South King, Rainier Beach is in North King and Renton is in East King.
“Most of the time the light rail from Rainier Beach is just as fast (or even faster) than the 101. So why send it to Seattle?”
Do you realize you’re talking to people that have been advocating truncating the 101 and 150 at Rainier Beach for twelve years or more? The reason it hasn’t happened is Metro is solidly against truncating the 101, saying it would add too much to travel time. Renton and Tukwila are so far east of Link that it takes time to get to it, plus the overhead of the surface alignments on MLK and SODO and the east-west detour to get to Rainier Valley. All that is where the 12 minutes comes from.
The 101 is 40 minutes from Westlake to Renton TC. That’s about the maximum tolerable, especially since most people are going beyond it to other parts of Renton, making a total trip close to an hour or more. That’s long for a city just 12 miles away — and with a population over 100K. This could be improved with faster Link or 10-minute frequent Sounder, but those aren’t in the cards. So the only other solution is to bypass Link and run on the freeway,as the 101 already does.
In the 2014 cuts we asked Metro to truncate the 101 at Rainier Beach to raise the frequency from 30 minutes to 15 minutes. Metro said they only circumstance it would truncate it is if it couldn’t maintain 30-minute service otherwise.
Later Metro found some money and equity to increase the 101 to 15 minutes weekdays, so that’s a partial achievement.
In Metro Connects from 2016 and its later revisions, almost all Metro routes were restructured — except the 101 and a few routes you can count on one hand. Metro has never, ever published an alternative or planning scenario with the 101 truncated. Metro would probably be more open to extending the 101 to Fairwood or elsewhere in eastern Renton, but it has never had a scenario with that.
Metro similarly opposed truncating the 150, but now it has started wavering in the RapidRide upgrade (maybe in the late 2030s), with alternatives to downtown or Rainier Beach.
BAR station also offered the possibility of terminating express routes and the A there. Metro’s latest thinking seems to be that routes would more likely go through BAR station and terminate at Rainier Beach station.
“ Do you realize you’re talking to people that have been advocating truncating the 101 and 150 at Rainier Beach for twelve years or more? The reason it hasn’t happened is Metro is solidly against truncating the 101, saying it would add too much to travel time.”
I think that concerns about Link overcrowding were there too. Now that Federal Way Link Extension has opened just 3.5 months ago, a more realistic assessment of train overcrowding is possible.
The other problem may be the lack of enough layover space and good route reversing geometry at Rainier Beach.
The fate of the BAR station is more consequential for Route 150 than Route 101. The new preferred site would be great for Route 150 — but it’s seemingly faster to send Route 101 to Rainier Beach than to the relocated BAR station — and that’s before considering the added 2-3 extra minutes in Link to ride one more station from Downtown Seattle. Besides, even if it gets built, BAR is many years away no matter where it goes.
“If you’re taking about service to Enumclaw, that’s one situation.”
What Enumclaw needs better bus service. Service to Enumclaw is currently alright I’d say but the 915 needs more bus service, the 907 should be extended to Enumclaw, and the 596 needs to be extended to Enumclaw via Buckley. I would like to see service from Enumclaw to Sumner (connecting Enumclaw and Pierce County better than ever) every 20 minutes every day. This doesn’t just make the 596 a Sounder connector but also a local connector. Under my ideas all service to Enumclaw would run all-day, route 907 would run every 30 minutes and the 915 would run every 20-30 minutes.
Service to Buckley and Enumclaw on the 596 could be funded by King County Metro or Pierce Transit (though I think Metro would end up paying). The 596 would run every 20 minutes 7 days a week all-day.
The 907 would have a restored connection to Enumclaw (which used to run all the way there). The 907 could run every 30 minutes all-day every day.
The 915 wouldn’t really change. Though it could run 30 minutes (with a 10 minute wait for Sounder, encouraging riders to ride the 596 which would come more often to make up for the time loss). Though if people really dislike this idea then you can keep it every 20 minutes during peak… HOW ABOUT THAT!?
“Do you realize you’re talking to people that have been advocating truncating the 101 and 150 at Rainier Beach for twelve years or more? The reason it hasn’t happened is Metro is solidly against truncating the 101, saying it would add too much to travel time.”
I go by a creed, truncating I-5 buses to the 1 Line south of Seattle is completely UNACCEPTABLE!!!!
@Mike Orr
Forcing a transfer at Rainier Beach adds a lot of travel time:
– It takes about 20-24 from Renton TC to SODO on the 101.
– It takes 15 minutes from Rainier Beach to SODO on Link. Driving express from Renton TC takes 10-15 minutes. Including stops it’s likely closer to 15-20 minutes
Generally the 101 will reach SODO about 5-10 minutes earlier than an MLK to Rainier Beach link route. That means in most cases if you transfer immediately you’d get on an earlier train compared to transferring at Rainier Beach. And of course with the 101 many riders don’t need to transfer at all and can just ride the 101 straight into downtown.
@Al S
A theoretical Renton-Rainier Beach route could likely turn around and lay over with the 9.
“ Generally the 101 will reach SODO about 5-10 minutes earlier than an MLK to Rainier Beach link route.”
So truncate the route in SODO? It might be ok — except the SODO busway may go away in the next two years to start West Seattle Link construction. A slog up 4th Ave S will work against that time advantage.
“So truncate the route in SODO?”
No, that’s a bad idea. Worse than ending the 3 Line in the middle of nowhere and building a new station next to the current one.
The 101 can access Rainier Beach directly through its current routing, but instead of taking the ramp onto I-5, it continues to the light rail station.
We could add some quick TSP and a bus lane if it speeds things up. The biggest slowdown is the I-5 on ramp heading towards Renton in the afternoons, and a queue jump solves that problem. That happens regardless if it goes to Seattle or not.
Rainier Beach to SODO really isn’t *that* slow. If it means more service, I think it’s a worthwhile tradeoff to lose the direct trip to Seattle. I ride the 101 here and there, and it’s pretty empty outside of peak hours…and during peak hours the light rail would be (theoretically) faster because of I-5 traffic.
If not the 101, Renton needs some express connection to light rail. I think the Rapid I Line should’ve done that. That way they can go to the airport, UW, Capitol Hill, Shoreline, or Lynnwood without having the transfer at SODO (I-5 traffic sucks especially northbound).
Or extending the future 1 Line light rail to Renton to give 4 min headways (kind of like how the 2 and 3 lines operate today) is clearly the best solution. Should be an ST4 prioriry.
Light rail to West Seattle is questionable and very low value unless they plan to include Southcenter and SeaTac as well.
“the 596 needs to be extended to Enumclaw via Buckley. I would like to see service from Enumclaw to Sumner (connecting Enumclaw and Pierce County better than ever) every 20 minutes every day.”
Buckley is close to Enumclaw? When I’ve gone through Buckley from Tacoma on the former PT route or in a car to Wikleson or Mt Rainier beyond it, it’s like an hour away in far southeast Pierce County. That’s close to Enumclaw? How many people in Enumclaw would want to go to Buckley, Puyallup, and Sumner or vice-versa, and why? I wouldn’t think there’s much there to go to.
The problem with the current 101 is it gets stuck in traffic and it’s not as reliable as light rail. It also has less useful connection opportunities.
If you’re going to SODO, then the 101 is a bit faster than light rail (5-10 mins) outside of peak. But often times if you want to hop onto light rail at SODO, you’re going to end up getting on the same train anyways if you had transferred earlier. If you’re lucky, you might get one train early. But in peak hours I-5 traffic basically says… no chance.
Also after SODO, the 101 becomes way slower than if you took light rail further into downtown. And you also can’t go anywhere beyond Westlake. Your trip is over and you have to transfer.
If the 101 heads right to Rainier Beach, and the transfer is timed… It would be a much better trip for many riders. But of course people don’t like transfers and they aren’t smart enough to do it….shrug.
Skyway also gets exceptional service and all those stops do slow down the route. I think 102 runs should skip those stops. While it seems a waste the next 101 comes in a matter of minutes, but it saves minutes for many more riders who’ve already been on the 102 bus for 30+ mins.
Huh… Buckley and Enumclaw are neighbors? It’s like UW to Westlake in terms of distance.
The Metro area county isn’t as big as you think, Mike.
You can get pretty far here in a freeway under an hour. Meanwhile some routes take an hour to meander around the city for a few blocks.
It’s all about how the service hours are spent. Should we really stop every block, or space our stops more? Should we invest in more freeway routes… And have local routes transfer / through route into the faster routes? That’s how you use fewer service hours but increase coverage and speed.
@ SKR:
I generally agree with you about RapidRide I. It is obvious to me that RapidRide I should go to Rainier Beach and Metro should eliminate Route 101 to free up the service hours to make that happen. The time it takes to run into Downtown Seattle could be traded for 10-minute all day service to Link for both Renton and Kent East Hill. At such a high frequency, timed transfers aren’t as important. And ST seems hellbent in closing the SODO busway in the next two years anyway.
Route 102 could be revised based on what riders want and need. The 101 hours saved with truncation may even provide more hours for Route 102. Maybe Route 102 riders would prefer running directly to Link or Downtown on another path.
If the SODO busway closes then running to downtown is even more useless. I had no clue that’s happening.
The only reason I take downtown buses is to use the SODO busway for transfers. What a joke.
In that case I think the 102 with expanded service to Rainier Beach makes the most sense. Or even better it could go to S Bellevue Station in some runs. That gives access to more of the region, and you can still get Seattle if you want.
But that’s what I’m trying to say. There’s no point of running the 101/102 to Seattle or it should be turned into a real express with HOV infrastructure… And the busway should stay and be upgraded into a real busway. It’s a bit ridiculous seeing a busway without even TSP for the vehicles it’s serving.
“ If the SODO busway closes then running to downtown is even more useless. I had no clue that’s happening.”
You and many other people! ST never mentions that to the larger public forum. Most there want to build West Seattle Link so badly that they avoid discussing these details.
Here is the preferred station configuration at this moment:
https://westseattlelink.infocommunity.org/img/SODO_PLAN_PO.jpg
The bus stops are even moved to a loop that is off 6th rather than 4th! It’s ridiculously circuitous for a through bus rider.
The new SODO station screws lots of other transit users in many different ways — all to make West Seattle advocates happy.
So truncate the route in SODO?
Why stop there? Might as well truncate all the buses from the south — Kent, Tukwila, Tacoma — truncate them all. Oh, and while we are at it, let’s send all the West Seattle buses to SoDo and truncate them as well.
Sorry, no. SoDo is not a destination. It is not like the UW. It is also quite close to downtown. It is always tempting to force a transfer in places like this but there is a reason why it generally isn’t done. People hate it. You’ve ridden your bus — often for miles — and there you are, quite close to your destination and then you are forced to transfer. You’ve also forced three-seat rides to places like First Hill. Sorry, that is just a bad idea.
In contrast, forcing a transfer at Rainier Beach for Renton riders is reasonable. But then we should be consistent. Force everyone from the south to transfer as well (Tacoma, Kent, Auburn — you name it). Of course you then you run into the basic problem. It takes too long. There is always a trade-off. It depends a lot on how much money you have and what trips you want to favor. Given the time savings, I can see the argument for the 101.
But Sound Transit is going to run buses from Redmond to Downtown Seattle. That is exactly the path of Link! For most of the riders, you aren’t forcing a transfer. You are just giving riders a bus ride that is only marginally faster than Link. I really have no qualms with buses like the 101 when ST is planning on running an express version of East Link every fifteen minutes.
So South King Resident is for truncating the 101 (or all-day 102) at Rainier Beach? They seem to be arguing on both sides of the issue. And Scooby Doo is for it and jd is against it. I’m unsettled which way to go because there are significant tradeoffs either way.
“Huh… Buckley and Enumclaw are neighbors? It’s like UW to Westlake in terms of distance…. The Metro area county isn’t as big as you think, Mike.”
I wouldn’t know because I don’t drive and don’t have a car, there’s no bus service, and I’m resistant to taking Uber.
I went through Enumclaw once on a group trip to the mountains decades ago. Earlier there was little bus service to it. Now there’s a 915 from Auburn to Enumclaw with an erratic schedule until 6-7 pm weekdays and Saturdays. I’ve been thinking about taking that someday. But I also have a fear about going out that far or to rural areas and somehow missing the last bus back and having to find someplace to stay there overnight.
I went to Buckley once on the former PT route, and through it in a car a couple times. I have no way to see what the area east or west of Buckley is like. There was an article earlier suggesting adding transit to Frederickson, southwest of Bonney Lake, whatever is there.
Fairwood routes 102 and 148 should be restructured to have timed meets with south Sounder. The revised route would meet Route 101 and others at South Renton. Routes 107 and 148 should not n
Be paired as the headways do not match.
This is like saying that everyone would be safer from gun violence if everyone owned a gun.
Not at all. It’s saying instead of taking away people’s guns forcefully, give them a reason not to use their guns. Which doesn’t even make sense. But it does make sense for cars.
Obviously that analogy doesn’t even make sense. These are too distinct issues and there are no logical ties between them. So no, this is a completely invalid comparison.
Hey, if there were a lot of people who insisted they had a reason to be shooting their guns near people, giving them a reason not to do that would make perfect sense!
(Fortunately, in reality, gun ranges have strong safety rules.)
The big difference is that cars, unlike guns, really do have a reason for many people to use them in daily life in ways that could easily become dangerous. It would be good to try to change that.
There are other sensitive issues that involve death that different political groups have different opinions on.
Some involve the death of animals, plants, pre-birth, assisted suicide, homicide, gang violence, alcohol, drugs, death penalty…
These also contribute to a high number of deaths. But I’m sure many of you would try to bat around banning the activities that cause these losses. Maybe you value a certain life less or more, or you think it could disproportionately impact a certain group.
That’s why I’m saying prohibition is infeasible.. and people will naturally stop bad behaviors when we focus on better education, better standard of living, better healthcare, and better infrastructure (such as public transit).
You don’t have to force someone to stop doing something you disagree with. You can make it a convenient option to stop that bad practice instead. Humans naturally pick their own convenience over life. Even people who think they’re super moral and religious, will hold some idea in their head that their convenience and their superior views can justify a death. That’s just the harsh truth.
I thought the limit was 45mph.
Link’s LRVs are designed for a max speed of 55mph, but rarely get to go that fast.
Nathan
They hit 55mph on every section north of Capitol Hill except for the UW-UDS section, and every section south of rainier beach. They also go that fast on quite a large proportion of eastlink. Rarely is definitely incorrect. I encourage you to ride with a speedometer app and see how fast it actually is going. It won’t work in the tunnels but I can assure you that the speed is at 55 for most of your journey.
My journeys on Link are almost entirely between Rainier Valley and Downtown Seattle, so I’ll speak to my experience. It would be interesting to see a map of the 1 and 2 Lines’ expected track speeds across each route.
From the King County Metrorail website:
https://www.kcmetroraildivision.com/track-access
These are the direct links to the signal maps. It shows the speed limits for the ATP system on the top and the milepost markers on the bottom, if you’re curious about the design speeds for the tracks.
https://da76b068-7814-46f6-a669-5c319b468213.filesusr.com/ugd/29bd8b_6adb039a853e40a0847ba7ce6b6c1893.pdf
https://da76b068-7814-46f6-a669-5c319b468213.filesusr.com/ugd/29bd8b_5da896850bd84a23a11c740da6218c00.pdf
https://da76b068-7814-46f6-a669-5c319b468213.filesusr.com/ugd/8b4077_aa4007fd92d640b8bcd35e53326ec640.pdf
The new generation of Link cars can apparently go 65 mph. It’s just that the track alignment was designed assuming a 55 mph cap. For faster speeds you need looser curves and flatter inclines.
ST appears unaware that its 55 mph gap contradicted its Spine goal of service out 35 miles to Tacoma and Everett. It seems to have not thought about the travel time implications. Now that Everett is estimated at an hour and Tacoma at 75 minutes (from Westlake), the impacts to passengers are becoming clear.
Link was originally going to be surface from CID to SeaTac and presumably all the way to Tacoma, so it might have been limited to 35 mph to match the adjacent arterial. Apparently nobody calculated what this would imply for travel time to Tacoma; I’m guessing 90 minutes to two hours.
ST boardmembers did acknowledge it in the run-up to ST3 and mused about retrofitting the Rainier Beach-TIB segment to speed it up. Nothing came of that, and I haven’t heard of anything similar in other segments. Although I think ST is quietly implementing a few segments capable of going faster than 55, and may try to see how fast it can speed up operations. But there doesn’t seem to be a blanket raise to 65.
Mike
I’ve actually done some calculations with an excel table and the curve radii from these track charts calculating what superelevations would be necessary to upgrade to a given speed based on the track design standards ST has posted. A lot of the curves could handle increased speeds and be within the maximum superelevation, especially on the eastlink i90 section and on the TIBS-RBS section. Obviously the straight of ways as well could see increased speeds, and Federal Way Link would benefit mostly from this bc of how straight and flat the alignment is. The biggest slowdowns are usually around stations where trains would be slowing down anyway. The KI Trainsets are limited to 57 mph though so until they retire faster speeds are highly unlikely.
At the very least the TIBS and I-90 segments should be brought up to 65 mph. That’d still be slower than many speeding cars, but at least it’d feel fast and shave a couple minutes off travel time.
I wouldn’t complain as much after that. It would be nice if we elevated Rainier Valley as well, and improved Link connections which are currently quite lacking in some parts of the county. Some Sounder connections exist for Kent southward but diminish in value as you head further north closer to SeaTac, Renton, and Newcastle.
Also reducing dwelling times hopefully, but increasing frequency and having more security on platform.
People will keep saying that “express buses exist” but express buses only go to Seattle. Link connects the region and serves way more useful places than just Downtown. It’s also more comfortable. So to be frank I don’t want a bus. I want to use Link but it’s just not fast enough to be worth using except when driving/parking is measurably worse (very rare).
A bus should still be able to connect to Link. But it’s not really doing that in many areas.
To clarify, I meant to address the quote about special speed limit during 1970s Oil Crisis. Somehow I remembered the limit as 45 mph, but I just fact-checked online and it was 55mph.
I’ve paced Link trains with my car twice on I-90 at 64mph.
@HZ Does Sammy Hagar mean nothing to you?
express buses only go to Seattle
That is not entirely true. They also connect to Link. But in the past they generally served the major destinations in Seattle (UW, downtown, South Lake Union and First Hill). A few buses still do.
Link connects the region and serves way more useful places than just Downtown.
Correct. While it is a hybrid system it is more like a metro than regional rail. This is smart. If anything, it should be more like a typical metro, with a lot more stops (serving a lot more “useful places”).
I want to use Link but it’s just not fast enough to be worth using except when driving/parking is measurably worse (very rare).
Wait, what? You want to use Link to get to places other than downtown but at the same time you want the train to skip those other places so it will be faster? That is obviously a contradiction. Congratulations, you’ve just explained why trying to build a hybrid commuter/metro just doesn’t work. You want it to be as fast as commuter rail but somehow also serve all of the stops of a normal metro. You can’t do both.
A bus should still be able to connect to Link. But it’s not really doing that in many areas.
I’m not sure what areas you are thinking about. But it seems like a high percentage of the buses connect to Link. Obviously not all of them. A bus like the 907 ends in Renton. It could continue to Rainier Valley (or run to downtown) but it really isn’t worth it. There are a few similar buses, but not that many, really.
“A bus like the 907 ends in Renton. It could continue to Rainier Valley (or run to downtown) but it really isn’t worth it.”
But routes like the 160/future I and 105 should continue to Rainier Beach somehow. The 907 is an unusual exception, being so far east through such small towns and low-population areas. That’s not at all like the Renton Highlands, Benson Hill, or Fairview.
@ctishman — You win the comment section today. That cracked me up.
The 70s actually provided a rare natural experiment where we could do state by state comparisons. For every 5 miles increase in posted speed limit, we saw an estimated 8% increase in the fatality rate.
The empty roads theory is also debunked. Rural, emptier roads with high speed limits account for a disproportionate number of serious injuries and deaths.
Speed kills, Herb.
Yeah, but South King Resident wants to Go Fast, so it’s politically infeasible to prevent him from doing that.
I also like to go fast. And I also feel like I’m justified because I think I’m an above average driver, and everyone else is an idiot. And I suspect most people on these boards feels the same (except Mike Orr).
But I also know I’m deluding myself. No we aren’t living in Lake Wobegon. Just about everyone other than the professionally trained are actually pretty bad at driving, and the 40,000 people a year dead on our roads every yea are a testament to our hubris and delusion.
The machines cannot be perfected soon enough.
My friend whose family owns a multigenerational car repair shop says the 55 mph cap did save fuel in the 1970s, but changes in car technology have made it so that there’s not as much difference in efficiency driving above 55 vs driving below 55. I don’t know cars so I can’t say changes these are or how true it is.
Paul Krugman the author lives in New York City, and probably doesn’t know Link light rail even exists, much less its speed cap or the speed limit of the adjacent freeway. I was skeptical of his suggestion because of what my friend said. But the argument it’s still worth seeing and evaluating anyway, and it’s newsworthy that a top economist is suggesting it right now.
The efficiency curve has certainly changed, but it’s still there. Peak efficient speeds are in the higher (50-60 mph rather than 40-50mph), but the non-linear drop in efficiency is still there with higher speeds. But it’s maybe half the effect that we saw 50 years ago, with improved aerodynamics and mechanical function.
Man the Renton/ 101 thread is long! I’ll step back down the tree for this comment:
ST wants to close the SODO busway in the next two years. Routes 101, 150 and several ST Express routes will be affected. Even Metro Route 50 will have some issues in its current routing if (or when) Lander closes for construction of the overpass.
The point being that — assuming that ST doesn’t pause this upcoming closure — transit in a big pie slice triangle between Downtown Seattle, SeaTac and East Hill has a potentially serious disruption to service coming in the next two years.
Because ST hasn’t yet made a final decision on West Seattle, others seem to be taking a wait and see attitude. But this could really disrupt many things as there is no vetted SODO busway closure restructuring being considered. Instead, the default is that all the buses will just use 4th Ave S.
There should be no hurry to build West Seattle Link. The “stub” period attracts a mere 5000 riders when opened and that’s an optimistic future year. The stub will not benefit very many riders unless the trains run into Downtown. ST seems to however feel a strong obligation and eagerness to start building West Seattle Link ASAP.
Riders on these Metro and ST routes need to weigh in on this to the ST Board. Many Board members have bought into the assumption that construction cost inflation is the main culprit in ST3 project inflation rather than scope creep and low-balled initial cost estimates and inadequate contingencies. (Elected leaders are averse to admitting their hand in mistakes.) They currently don’t seem to want to postpone anything — even though they easily could.
In West Seattle, Sound Transit should look at building the new bridge for buses, with the ability to convert to rail in the future. Readers on this blog know that BRT is ideal for West Seattle, and that trains truncating at either Delridge or the Junction are a worse transit outcome than improving buses.
I would propose building the new bridge with an elevated station at Delridge, then continue westbound per the preferred alternative that includes Avalon station. At 35th and Avalon, a ramp would be constructed to allow buses to access the new guideway/bridge. In SODO, the new bridge would connect to the SODO busway similar to what is currently proposed. This would be a moderate improvement over the existing conditions, with the big benefit being a new transit only bridge that can continue to function in 30 years when the West Seattle Bridge is due for replacement. Significant cost savings could be realized by deferring rails, electrical, and SODO station.
The C, 21, 128, and maybe the 50 could all use the new bridge. The H line could be modified to go to Alki via Admiral (with transfers to ultra frequent buses), or it could keep its existing routing so that service along the waterfront is continued.
This would punt light rail to the (likely distant) future, when an extension south towards White Center and Burien could be constructed and the decreased travel time from further south with light rail actually makes sense.
Ah yes the DSTT that was built for buses and converted to light rail that has some major issue every 2 months is something we should do more of!
DSTT: Gets converted into light rail service
I-90 express lanes: Get converted into light rail service
Anything else we need to convert into light rail service that we should be aware of? What about SODO Busway? It’s poorly used and could see more trees and a larger gangway. I mean people using transit would just use light rail.
This is actually a great idea. It would be kind of analogous to building the downtown bus tunnel then later upgrading it for light rail. In this case, build the transit bridge, and run BRT on it until we have the resources to build a light rail line (or lines) that actually serves West Seattle better than the current busses do. Presumably an automated line could be put on the table. I could get behind this. Maybe think in terms of upgrading Rapid Ride C or H to Stride 4, which connects to Stride 1 at Burien?
Why change the H? It’s the most productive route that serves West Seattle, and the best bus connecting Burien to Seattle. Making only H riders transfer feels wrong to me, and it makes anyone getting to Delridge from elsewhere transfer an extra time too. Better connections within West Seattle should be done by running the 128 every 15, not by hamstringing West Seattle’s best bus.
“This would punt light rail to the (likely distant) future” you mean when building infrastructure is even more expensive than now?
This is the thing I hate most about the anti WSLE people. They complain that it’s cost inefficient so cancel or push it back decades. It’ll just get more and more expensive over time.
I live at the junction and actually want passenger rail this century. Apparently this is controversial even though the area has a 95+ walk score and people who live here will actually use it.
https://www.walkscore.com/score/4100-sw-edmunds-st-seattle-wa-98116
Infrastructure being more expensive in the future (in real terms) is not an unshakable fact of the universe, and I think it’s silly to use the specter of it’s the cheapest it will ever be now to build a specific project when there are many competing projects. Unless there’s project specific cost considerations, it isn’t a very fruitful point of discussion.
Do the people who live at 15th and Market (walk score 98) not have an equal stake in getting better transit? If we go by traditional transit metrics (ridership, efficiency, etc.) the D outperforms the C. All projections point to the same dynamic for Ballard Link vs. West Seattle.
And I’ll bite: is there anything that WSLE will give you that the C currently lacks?
The big component of the cost increase is how the original referendum had no bored tunnel to reach Alaska Junction and that changed with subsequent plans. That’s a bigger factor in the cost escalation. It’s not mere inflation.
And the reason for the tunnel doesn’t help Link riders as the station will be deep. And the upcoming excavated station vault/ hole will be there through the many years of construction.
And every billion that goes to changing the track profile in West a Seattle is a billion that could have been used to improve Link elsewhere within Seattle. Just dropping Avalon would more than cover the Graham Station overrun — and Graham will attract more riders.
Finally, about 3/4 of the Alaska Junction station users will be transferring to/from buses. Those buses could stop at another less expensive station just as easily — and the journey between the bus stop and rail platform would be a much shorter vertical change.
The relatively tiny clump of Alaska Junction density is quaint and green, but it’s not unique around Seattle. Many other areas have it too — and ST3 ignored them (like around Harborview or parts of the CD or Lake City or U Village or Fremont or Belltown).
Blumdrew I ride both the C and route 50. I know C is more often compared with WSLE than 50 but if you look at the planned route of WSLE it much more closely follows 50 than C.
The C line doesn’t go to delridge or SODO, the 50 and WSLE do and also hit the junction where the C is. The C also goes to SLU which link seemingly never will lol.
So yes WSLE gives me faster access to delridge for transfer to H and to SODO than C… mostly because C doesn’t go to either place!
And MUCH MORE importantly, just because Ballard is better doesn’t mean WSLE is bad! I agree that BLE should be top priority.
And in America it does seem to be an unshakable fact that infrastructure construction costs increase over time. Has there ever been a time in US history where that wasn’t the case?
I guess if the ‘big one’ or a war destroys half of Seattle then yes it would be cheaper then.
LOL Al talking about Alaska Junction being quaint and green then bringing up how scaling back WSLE helps Graham station. if we follow your logic then you should be advocating for cancelling Graham station to help Alaska junction get built
Yes Alaska junction is no U District or Capitol Hill but it’s already denser than every station in Rainier valley, Beacon hill, which have had 15 years to densify.
How come Beacon hill can get a tunneled station but Junction can’t?
“is there anything that WSLE will give you that the C currently lacks?”
Grade separated rapid transit.
If that’s not good enough then how is ELE justified when 550 already exists? Obviously link is better yet nobody is screaming over that.
@ Ian:
“ Yes Alaska junction is no U District or Capitol Hill but it’s already denser than every station in Rainier valley,…”
LOL… And there are no bored tunnels on MLK.
“ How come Beacon hill can get a tunneled station but Junction can’t?”
Because it was required to connect all the stations north and south of it, and Beacon Hill was too steep for trains to climb. It’s like a Ship Canal Tunnel or a Lake Washington Bridge. If Beacon Hill was the end of the line, it probably would not have been pursued.
I get how Alaska Junction is a precious urban village. But it only goes from SW Oregon St to SW Edmunds St and it ends at 44th Ave SW. It’s just not a massive area.
And ST3 never promised and budgeted for a bored tunnel to Alaska Junction. The region would already be building a 3 mile high bridge with approaches for WSLE already. And yet that segment is only 50% of the original budget. The other 50% is going from Delridge to Alaska Junction — just a mile.
Much to the chagrin of many, West Seattle Link is twice as expensive as expected. It’s way out of scale in cost overages to all of the other extension shortfalls except DSTT2 with Ballard. Whether it was an ST3 costing mistake or attributable to switching to a bored tunnel is a matter of debate, but the rest of us ST3 taxpayers are on the hook for covering the overage that we didn’t vote for.
And now that SDOT is proposing closing Alaska Street to cars, there is no need to bore a deep tunnel and excavate a deep station. A cut and cover profile running under a closed Alaska Street would be much cheaper. It’s just that it wasn’t an idea studied in the DEIS because years ago there was this mostly philosophical decision (no awareness of the cost implications) about which direction the platform should go.
Ian,
The key transit corridor for WSLE is still Junction – Downtown, so that’s why people compare it to the C. And yes, it will improve intra-West Seattle trips but it may do so at the cost of getting to non-Junction parts of West Seattle. I currently have a one transfer ride to any part of West Seattle, after WSLE if the C and H are truncated at the stations, I’ll need an extra transfer to go most places. Even if Link is faster, any time saved will probably be lost again transferring.
Has there been times in American history where infrastructure costs have decreased in real terms? Yes absolutely, especially from 1800 to 1900. Our skyrocketing costs now aren’t a universal fact of life, they are a result of specific policy choices.
Al S. more or less covered the geographical reasons why Beacon Hill has a tunneled station. But I want to point out that the South End has basically always had better transit ridership than West Seattle. Both the 36 and the 7 get much better ridership than the C or H, especially in per mile terms. Yes, they are partial Link feeders but population density isn’t the only metric which drives transit ridership.
If we compare the C to the 36, the C actually covers 4 more Census Tracts with more than 10,000 residents per square mile than the 36, by virtue of extending all the way through downtown. But the 36 gets more riders per mile, because the 36 covers a part of town where people ride transit more. The 36 gets healthy ridership on its southern tail south of Columbian Way (through relatively less dense areas). The C gets basically nothing between Westwood Village and Morgan Junction. Of course, Beacon Hill is less White and generally less wealthy than West Seattle (or at least the parts of West Seattle served by the C), both of which tend to be groups of people who ride the bus more. There’s a similar dynamic on Rainier.
Good rapid transit planning should incorporate more than just population density. Because the relevant metric is density of transit riders. This is a bit of a silly distinction in a way, but it’s meaningful in the sense that transit agencies should care about existing riders first, and speculative future riders second, because the former is a better indicator of if any area will support more transit.
Link was originally going to go around the southeast edge of Beacon Hill. Then Paul Allen wanted a stadium station. And the city started being interested in a SODO station for industrial workers. So Link was routed to SODO station and across Beacon Hill to Mt Baker (and the base is there). So then Link had to tunnel under Beacon Hill. But there was no Beacon Hill station yet.
The community urged adding a Beacon Hill station. ST responded by adding a deferred station, that could be built in a future ST vote. In the end it did add a Beacon Hill station to ST1, so it opened with it. And that brought one more urban village onto Link.
If the cost to build new Link infrastructure keeps going up, then one of the few arguments for West Seattle Link disappears. West Seattle Link is basically a stub line. It only has three stops (if that). All of the stops are close to the West Seattle Bridge — an expressway that offers a very fast connection to downtown. Thus it offers very little — initially. But someday, eventually, it could be extended in every direction with multiple lines and a lot of stations, saving those riders a lot of time. But if costs keep going up, that argument goes away.
Of course that begs the question — why are we investing so much in West Seattle *before* investing in other areas? What about a line between Ballard and the UW? That is bound to be a much better value. What about a line to First Hill or the “Metro 8 Subway”. Again, these are much better values. Why on earth are we building a starter line to West Seattle when we haven’t built up the rest of the system and may never be able to afford another extension?
There really is no sensible answer. It comes down to choices the board made, way back when.
But here is the thing I want to emphasize, again. An investment in buses would be much better for riders. Connect the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway and you get the best of both worlds.
For an extreme example, consider someone in Alki or Admiral Way. Imagine the 56, running every ten minutes during peak and every 15 minutes the rest of the day and night. It would go to downtown via the SoDo Busway. Now imagine the West Seattle Link alternative — the riders from Alki and Admiral District take the 50 and transfer to Link. The 56 will get to the SoDo Station at about the same time the 50 would get to the Alaska Junction Station. Which is better?
It isn’t close. In very case, it is better to have the 56. Riders heading downtown avoid a transfer. If they do transfer to Link, SoDo is an excellent place for it. If they are transferring to go south (to say, SeaTac) then they avoid an additional transfer. The same is true if they are headed to the East Side. If they are going to some place like First Hill, Uptown, South Lake Union, the Central Area (or any of the dozens of Seattle neighborhoods that have a direct connection to downtown) they also avoid an extra transfer. In every case they are either about the same or they come out way ahead.
Now consider other neighborhoods. It is a similar story. If you take the H Line, then a transfer at SoDo is probably better than a transfer on Delridge. So again, the bus improvements are either about the same (for relatively few riders) or they come out way ahead. With the C and 21 you might have a few riders coming out ahead but only by a little. They might catch an earlier train with a transfer in West Seattle instead of SoDo. But then again, they might come out behind. The transfer will take a while. It is basically a wash. And this assumes they want to transfer in the first place.
There really are only a handful of trips where a rider would be better off with West Seattle Link. If they are trying to get from the Alaska Junction to Youngstown. If they happen to be at one of the three stations then they come out ahead. But for the vast majority of trips and the vast majority of riders in West Seattle, they come out way ahead with the bus alternative.
Overall it isn’t close. An investment in buses would be much better for riders.
Easy answer, Dow Constantine lives there.
If that’s not good enough then how is ELE justified when 550 already exists?
Because the West Seattle Junction is not Downtown Bellevue! If there were skyscrapers in West Seattle this would be a very different conversation. But with all due respect to Alaska Junction, it is not that special. It is similar to Columbia City. There is some density. There are clubs, restaurants and bars that attract people from other neighborhoods. But even by West Seattle standards it doesn’t stand out. It is merely one of many good — but not great — destinations. Years ago, David Lawson considered what a West Seattle light rail plan might look like (https://seattletransitblog.com/2013/12/27/how-might-west-seattle-link-actually-look/). He first considered the destinations in West Seattle, which led to this excellent map: https://i0.wp.com/seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Screen-Shot-2013-12-26-at-9.56.17-PM.png. What is striking is that nothing dominates. Unlike Bellevue, there is no place where you say “This place is by far the most important destination”. According to the latest density maps, High Point has the most density — but not by a lot. Alki draws people from all over but is still not a huge draw. The college is fairly small. The map doesn’t even list the two high schools (West Seattle and Sealth). Alaska Junction probably is the best all-around location but it is only a bit better than the other places.
This changes the dynamic. Columbia City may be the best station in the area but it is merely one of many good stations in Rainier Valley. The cost per station is relatively cheap.
But that simply isn’t the case in West Seattle. This brings up another major difference. East Link has twelve stations. West Seattle Link has just three. Just consider that for a second. Imagine East Link just ended in Downtown Bellevue. Also imagine it skipped Jukdins Park and South Bellevue. So three stations: Mercer Island, East Main and Downtown Bellevue. The similarities with West Seattle Link are striking. Mercer Island is the main interface for the buses (it is the Delridge equivalent). Now riders have to transfer instead having that one-seat ride to downtown. East Main is OK, but if the budget is tight, it might get cut. The main station is Downtown Bellevue. That’s by far the best station. There are differences, of course (Downtown Bellevue dwarfs the Junction, etc.) but it is the same idea. Well, guess what? If that was East Link, then yes, there would be a very good case for simply running buses instead. Continue running buses on I-90 from Issaquah and Eastgate — those riders come out ahead. Replace the 550 with an express that gets on the freeway in the HOV lanes and doesn’t leave them until it reaches downtown Seattle. It would actually be faster than Link much of the time. If that is what we actually built — and it was extremely expensive — then there would be a lot of people saying it isn’t worth the money and we can do better with buses (just like West Seattle Link).
But that isn’t the case. That isn’t what we built. East Link will have twelve stations. Most of them are operating right now. We’ve already seen good ridership with those stations. Over 10,000 riders July and September of last year. Not to oversimplify things, but this is why we built East Link. It is the combination of trips within the East Side as well as combination of trips across the lake. We already know the former is successful. The latter is bound to be successful as well. By having a lot more stations the bus alternative becomes a lot more challenging. You would have to run express buses not only from Downtown Bellevue but places like the Spring District, Wilburton and BelRed. There are just a lot more stations. As a result, you have a bunch of trips that will now be a lot faster (or already are). Microsoft to Downtown Bellevue, Mercer Island to Downtown Redmond, Spring District to Downtown Seattle, Judkins Park to Downtown Bellevue.
In contrast, West Seattle Link won’t have many combinations. You only have three new stations. They are already fairly close together, so the speed improvement for trips between them will be minimal. Getting to the Delridge Station from the Junction may be a bit faster, but the Delridge Station is not a significant destination. Yes, there is value in connecting riders to the rest of Link sooner (instead of making that connection downtown) but that can be accomplished by sending the buses to SoDo (and on to downtown).
There is another major difference. East Link will open without a major restructure. This is a mistake, but it is a good experiment. What will ridership be like without the buses being truncated at Mercer Island or even doing a good job serving the major stations? My guess, not bad at all. You simply can’t say that with West Seattle Link. If you truncate the buses then a lot of your riders are unhappy. If you don’t truncate them then you end up with only a handful of riders.
Go back to the Davis Lawson proposal. He has a map for that, containing 11 stations — very similar to East Link. If that is what we were building it would be a completely different project. The debate would be purely over cost. Is it worth it? Maybe. Would it improve things dramatically for the people in West Seattle? Yes! Absolutely. You simply can’t replace that with buses.
But that isn’t what we are building. That is the fundamental flaw with West Seattle Link. It costs a fortune just to get to West Seattle. Once you do that, you can’t afford to actually add enough stations to be worth it. Worse yet, every station is close to the West Seattle Bridge. This means that the speed improvement over existing buses is minimal. We would be much better off investing in bus infrastructure (and additional service) instead.
I like this because it supplies what is probably the most important aspect of WS Link – a new, transit-focused bridge over the Duwamish. The existing viaduct is near the end of it’s useful life. Ideally the bridge viaduct are simply removed, like waterfront viaduct, but even if the state decides to fund a replacement (the city cannot afford it), a separate transit bridge (rail or bus) will be critical during what would be several years of demolition and reconstruction.
It could land somewhere near the West Seattle Health Club. The likely alternative for the light rail already has it landing roughly at 28th/Yancy.
https://www.theurbanist.org/content/images/2026/03/image-8.png
We really don’t need a new bus bridge. The existing bridge and viaduct will work just fine. It is basically a freeway (so I’ll call it that). The big thing we need is a connection from the West Seattle freeway to the SoDo Busway. I think it is easiest to do this via the Spokane Street Viaduct. This has other benefits. Currently, the bus-only lane ends a little bit before SR-99. Instead it will be extended all the way to the ramps for the SoDo Busway. This would eliminate the congestion that occurs as the existing buses go through the loop to get to SR-99. There is a “weave” that routinely occurs but that is about the only issue. That can be improved with some work as well. It really wouldn’t take much work to deliver speeds that are as fast as Link, even during rush hour*.
SoDo itself could be improved. This would also help Link. People often forget that Link runs on the surface there as well. A few overpasses and both the buses and Link could run faster and more consistently. The area that could probably use the most work is between the stadiums and Chinatown. It isn’t an impossible area to fix — it would just require some effort (and a bit of money).
At that point a bus is downtown. Anyone who is interested in riding Link will have already transferred (at the SoDo Station). For riders who are trying to get to the other end of downtown (or South Lake Union) it makes sense to just stay on the bus. The ideal solution would be another bus tunnel but that would cost about as much (if not more) than the proposed new downtown light rail tunnel (that we can’t afford). Of course it would add a lot more value for West Seattle riders (and a lot of other people) than West Seattle Link or the new tunnel but it wouldn’t be cheap.
It is best to get the most bang for your buck first. Connect the Spokane Street Viaduct with the SoDo Busway. Add a lot more paint in West Seattle itself. Improve the SoDo Busway. Add some ramp meters and perhaps some other (more expensive) improvements in West Seattle.
*I know this sounds like hyperbole but we have to consider the transfer. The transfer from a bus to a train at SoDo is very short (if you are heading towards downtown). There is no elevation change at all. The transfer the other direction is less than ideal but that can be fixed. Realistically if you are headed to downtown you will end up on the same train either way. If you are headed to some place in West Seattle you will get on the same bus.
Has Community Transit ever considered change to the 111 these days? They proposed extending it to the Alderwood Mall in 2020 and considered it for deletion in 2022 but it just seems like they’re just keeping it as a surplus route in case any Brier residents need it when it’s pretty obvious that Brier residents might just drive to Mountlake Terrace Station and take the light rail not to mention the close distance between the two. Aside from being a light rail commuter (to Seattle, which the 111 was created due to the 477 being deleted which was a Brier to Seattle commuter), here’s what I propose:
The 111 would be extended east to UW Bothell via Atlas, Barker, Locust, 228th, and Canyon Park P&R. The route would be a straight run on 228th from Locust to 35th (with the exception of the Canyon Park P&R deviation). The route would also double frequency with the 121 and combine 15-30 minute frequencies on overlapping segments. This proposal would add 50 weekday trips and 30 weekend trips. New stops would be added between 228th/29th and 228th/4th to serve housing growth.
I can see the 111’s ridership being somewhat like the 120’s (which serves similar areas and gets good ridership), if not MORE. Let’s not forget that Brier residents would be more aware of the 111 now with it running all day and not having to walk all the way to 44th. I see a lot of advantages for high ridership, such as Bothell West (which is getting new housing), Canyon Park Business Park, North Creek Business Park, UW Bothell/Cascadia College, and now more people would ride the 111 to light rail to get to Seattle rather than driving from Brier (I’m just assuming). I’ve suggested this to Community Transit twice now and they haven’t turned it down.
I’m not just making assumptions, I have been on the 111 twice. The first trip I took, I was the only passenger the whole trip, and the second (I took at Brier P&R not the first stop) there was only one person onboard besides me. There’s only four trips 5 days a week on the 111 and that MUST change, we must give Brier more transit access. There aren’t ridership stats for Community Transit but I can assume the 111 carries VERY few passengers, the 111 doesn’t have LOW ridership no not even that, probably NO ridership is the answer. I saw a video of the 111 departing Mountlake Terrace Station back in 2013 and I only saw at least two people onboard, and that was when the 111 had more trips.
So in conclusion, this is an idea that MUST be prioritized before anything else (like Swift Gold, more ZIP areas, Swift Green to UW Bothell). Brier must get the service that Community Transit proposed in 2020 that they never got, CT didn’t postpone it but cancelled it entirely. This change would be a big effect on communities in Brier, Mountlake Terrace, and Bothell and finally bridge that gap between Brier and Bothell West (111 and 120).
NOTE: In the Transit Changes in 2024 and Beyond project, what CT said on the 111 is “no changes AT THIS TIME”. What I’m emphasizing is AT THIS TIME, which could mean that they weren’t prioritizing the 111 at the time.
I voted “no” on the ST3 proposal because the Ballard link extension was the only really great idea it had to offer, and I thought we could do better with a more focused initiative.
What a mess.
Don’t forget Downtown Redmond Link; that was another great idea (which opened last year).
But otherwise, yes, same with me.
I really like everything in ST3, though I just think it’s a mess because of the funding and high costs. Even though Ballard Link is technically cancelled I really think it could have been good to truncate the D Line south to Ballard Station and extend it to Lake City with the money saved. West Seattle Link was good for truncating RapidRide lines and all buses that go through the West Seattle Bridge (except for the 50 which could be split instead). The only thing I’m concerned about is Everett Link (which goes through Paine Field). I can imagine how low ridership would be and it’s not gonna be worth it. Just truncate ELE at Mariner and do very little cuts after that. What about the N Line? That could use some some service!
One thing that must be understood about peak commuter service vs other service is there quarters of people’s trips are for non-work purposes. You gi to work five days a week but the total of your other trips to the store, errands, events, recreation, and getting together with others is more than that.
Historically Metro, ST, and other agencies have offered much more frequency and coverage for 9-5 trips, especially to downtown Seattle, and left off-peak service so neglected that it was often infeasible to use or didn’t exist to where people were going.
The boosting of off-peak and non-disntien service is an attempt to partly rectify this, and make it more feasible to use transit for a majority of people’s trips.
This is why I’m not concerned about peak service. It will take care of itself because the agencies and governments overemphasize it. Not as much as they did in the 2910s, but all-day, weekend, and evening service is still behind overall and insufficient for a lot of people’s trips.
This is if you are transit-dependent. I very much support the boosting of midday and night service but there’s still heavier transit usage 6-9a & 3-6p. But no doubt, the vast majority of the Puget Sound population are not transit dependent and have access to a car or rideshare (whether it be family/friends or Uber)
A lot of trips are also in rush hour one direction, but off peak hours, the other. If transit is insufficient quality in the off-peak direction, then the only alternative is to drive both directions, and sit in traffic in the peak direction. I run into this issue constantly. I would take transit more to evening activities during the PM peak, if it ran more often to get me home at 9 PM, afterwards.
I had same thought about late night trips too, but the reality is very few people are out that late.
Every single time I took 24/33 after 8pm, it carries less than 5 people into Magnolia.
I’d very much wish they could maintain 30 min headway until 10pm, but I totally understand why they KCM wouldn’t do that
It’s a bit of a chicken-egg problem though, and depends heavily on the route. From my experience the 8 is busy even late into the evening. On the other hand, the 255 is typically pretty empty. When I was living in Kirkland I rarely stayed out late unless I drove, because the 255 only runs every 30 minutes in the evenings and requires a transfer if you are outside of the U District. It’s likely slightly better now since the 1/2 interline, but at the time transferring from a 12 minute headway train to 30 minute headway bus was just too painful
Count me in favor of reducing the speed limit. More importantly, we should be enforcing the speed limit with automated cameras. The existing speed limits are widely ignored, and our police force is not capable of encorcing them.
I whole-heartedly agree. And pour every cent of those speed fines into improving transit and pedestrian and bike infrastructure.
We need better infrastructure and lower speed limits. Raising the speed limit is just a stupid idea and where will it get you? Nowhere, exactly.
Rather than truncating the Ballard line at Smith Cove, at least we should extend it to Interbay so that we can run a gondola across the Ship Canal until a tunnel can be funded.
https://seattletransitblog.com/2026/01/19/learn-from-paris-gondola-line-over-ship-canal/
Martin’s Interbay extension: Too costly, you would probably need to make some trade-offs in order to do so.
Martin’s Gondola idea: Why just to Ballard? Why not to Crown Hill and even Northgate/Lake City?
It could be a gondola hub for upper Queen Anne and Fremont too. Maybe the cruise ship terminal too!
And frankly a similar hub could could be useful if West Seattle Link stopped at Delridge and a spider of gondola lines could be built with the billions saved.
Above 55 mph, each additional mph does increase fuel consumption. However, speed limit signs are a rather crude way to reduce highway speeds, as their facto meaning has become that they are mere suggestions, unless you are driving way over the limit, and way faster than everybody else. Only on streets with speed cameras, does a speed limit actually mean what it says it mean.
There is also the fact that, during heavy traffic, freeway travel is below 55 mph anyway, and that the biggest safety benefits of speed reductions are on surface streets, not freeways.
I think highway speed limits should be reduced in some places, such as highway 2 near Stevens Pass, but on I-5 and I-90, I think they’re mostly fine as is.
We’ve had the discussion before about whether transit makes more from increased fuel costs from added ridership vs the increased operational cost. I think the answer depends largely on how long lasting the price increase is. If it’s long and appears to be “permanent” it gives people time to switch modes and change their routine. Short spikes probably just increase operating cost without any significant increase in ridership. This blip is more likely a short term one that will just cost Metro money. The bigger danger to transit is the risk of recession from increased oil prices (diesel, fertilizer, plastics, etc.). A recession raises unemployment and especially if accompanied by inflation cuts into discretionary income which means less trips overall and less sales tax revenue.
KCM has ETBs and BEBs and hybrids. The direct impact from fuel prices is abated a bit by this.
I’ve even wondered if a certain electric vehicle manufacturer wanted the Strait of Hormuz shut down to raise fuel prices and thus raise their car sales.
An easy adjustment for Metro would be to start running ETBs on weekends. They do it holiday weekends already.
I’d like to recommend a local YouTube transit channel. J-Man Explores. (@j-manexplores). I like his series Ranking Every Link Light Rail Station. He has a new video up today evaluating Columbia City. He also has a series called Ranking Every King County Metro Route.
Yes, I’ve seen that channel. You should also check out these channels:
https://www.youtube.com/@6_7_4_1-v6c (me)
https://www.youtube.com/@jaylanballinger8468 (my friend)
https://www.youtube.com/@PugetSoundTransitDude577 (my other friend)
https://www.youtube.com/@SeattleTransit (Leo Urquhart)
Seattle Transit also has another channel but he likes to do full rides, me and my friends just do bus videos and hang out you know.
I wish the I line extended to the outlet mall in auburn. I went there recently and it seemed pretty popular, plus its only a mile past auburn station.
Why not Auburn Station itself and maybe even Green River College (which is in the ST boundaries but close to the limits)? Also it’s sad how ST seems like prioritizing Tacoma over Auburn but that’s definitely something they should consider for ST4… Light rail service from Ballard to Auburn (which could overlap the 1 Line from Ballard to South Federal Way similar to how the 2/3 lines function currently 1/2 lines). Man that would be nice :)
Oops sorry Delta, I thought you meant the 1 Line but typed the letter I. I now know you mean the upcoming RapidRide line.
Does anyone know the definition of frequent transit stop used in washington? I tried to find it in the recent zoning law update, but was unable.
It’s not defined, as far as I’m aware.
FUN FACT: According to Pantograph (a very cool website with a lot of transit info) a 111 trip in the AM becomes a 114 trip (but doesn’t run passenger service between Mountlake Terrace and Aurora Village). One time I was on the light rail coming from Brier and I saw the 111 vehicle I was on headed on I-5 towards the 205th exit (which I assumed was headed to Aurora Village). This is really cool, and I actually never knew that the 114 I always catch at 7:26 am to school was on the 111 before the 114! This is really cool.
Idk if the driver will let me continue on the 111 to Aurora Village from Mountlake Terrace though (like what people do on the 222 which lays over at Woodinville P&R but ends in Cottage Lake). Though I can just take the 119 to Ash Way P&R, not a big deal.
When the Bike Blog is wondering why we aren’t looking at an elevated alignment to save money, you know the technical staff have lost the plot.
Ballard is unaffordable not because of anything in the Ship Canal or Interbay, but because the tunnel between Smith Cove and Westlake is prohibitively expensive.
Extend the existing two mile Monorail.
Sure. Or, at we discussed at length a few weeks ago, built a new elevated rail that replaces & reuses the existing monorail alignment. Closing the monorail for ~5 years of demolition & construction is far less impactful than closing the DSTT for a new underground junction.
Yeah, I’d love an elevated line along 5th Ave that reuses the monorail segment (which would be better than building a second tunnel). It should definitely be considered as an alternative to DSTT2 if ST still makes a big deal over their shortfall (even though they should just give voters what they promised). I mean ST has considered truncating BLE at Seattle Center and we can do even better if we just upgraded and replaced the monorail segment with light rail and extended that monorail segment above 5th Ave to Stadium (and then probably continue as the 1 Line). Though something Sound Transit should do in ST4 is consider an Auburn Link Extension (along SR 18 to Outlet Collection Seattle, Auburn Station, and Green River College).
The ST board meeting today will vote on the ST Express fall 2026 restructure motion. There’s little if anything different from the last proposal.
I will probably get hate for this and it’s an anecdote, not data, but: Just arrived at SeaTac airport and got on Link at 1:50 pm on a weekday. The middle of this Link car is almost unusable. Across from the luggage area a guy is sprawled over two seats asleep with a coat over his head. On one of the two double seats is a woman with a dog sitting on the seat. All the passengers are avoiding this part of the car.
If the purpose of transit is to provide mobility, reduce pollution and congestion, it needs to prioritize civility and transportation. If it’s unpleasant for riders they won’t ride again.
In the past if I sent a photo of the conditions to security they don’t do anything.
It’s sad that days before the 2 line and world cup, this is what we have.
I don’t think that there is the will to change the experience for riders
Yep. One of the other issues with Sound Transit and King County Metro
Speed and efficiency is a top issue, but the cleanliness and safety is a secondary issue. Huge loss in ridership because of these two issues.
Otherwise it is a top notch system. They have to stop pandering to brainwashed liberals and focus on the progressive agenda instead. I try to associate myself with progressive viewpoints and distinguish it from liberal / conservative / libertarian thought which has done a great damage to the country.
The best thing we can do is promote safe, efficient and fast mobility to our citizens. That should be the goal alone. But everyone has an agenda.
Transit Safety came through the car. Woman with the dog got off. They woke the guy sprawled over two seats and left him there. He’s still sleeping over two seats and the safety guys are gone
Transit rider experiences are important to share! Thanks!
Seattle has lots of idealistic types that support transit but rarely ride. It’s quite common among elected officials. It’s more inspiring to promote dreams of better transit than to actually maintain it every day.
We’ve had lots of Link extensions opening these past five years. That excitement closes with Pinehurst opening this summer. We will have to wait at least 6 if not more years for anything new on Link.
Rider experience is about to dominate the Link news cycle for several years more than it has. While extension planning will also be in the news, far more riders will be on Link this summer than will be on all the extensions opening in the next 12 years combined.
“We’ve had lots of Link extensions opening these past five years. That excitement closes with Pinehurst opening this summer. We will have to wait at least 6 if not more years for anything new on Link.”
We don’t need more extensions soon when Link goes to so many places and solves so many trip problems that where there before the ST2 lines. People who start using Link will realize that and be glad it’s there, and wonder how we lived without it. That’s as satisfying to them as getting a new extension.
“People who start using Link will realize that and be glad it’s there, and wonder how we lived without it. That’s as satisfying to them as getting a new extension.”
My point is simply that ST will now need to pay more attention to its daily operation, especially to rider experience issues like safety and cleanliness — and especially to reliability.
People have been supporting Link partly because of the promise of getting light rail nearby. Now that most of the system is in place (with most key destinations served) and won’t be expanded for awhile, future support will more depend on how well it’s run — rather than on the hope of getting a station one day.
Link has now fully moved from student intern to office manager metaphorically.
In perusing the schedules that go into effect this weekend, I noticed that there are subtle service reductions being made between International District and Federal Way (including the Airport.)
Starting at around 7:30pm, service is reduced from every 10 minutes to every 12 minutes. It used to be every 10 minutes until 10pm.
Starting around 9:30pm, service is reduced down to every 16 minutes. It used to be every 10 minutes until 10, then every 15 minutes.
It probably is only saving 2 or 3 train trips altogether, but it’s kind of sad that after the massive capital investments, they are skimping on a few operating dollars. Personally I wish ST Link would operate every 8-10 minutes all day long. It seems like a false economy to reduce headways after 7pm, especially with the frequency we have evening events that can have release of big crowds and just the convenience of an easy to remember clockface schedule if it’s every 10 minutes.
Urbanist covered the ST retreat three scenarios. Were not all three implausible due to dropping or truncating the Ballard line? They also dropped the SLU station. Is not serving urban centers the main point? Has ST management lost its way due to spine worship?