ST’s monthly extended overnight maintenance program heads to the Eastside next week: Link 2 Line service between Bel-Red and Downtown Redmond will be replaced by shuttles after 10pm each evening on April 14-17.
Local Transit:
- Riders of the Rapidride G rejoice: SDOT has finished fixing construction errors requiring steel plates at the Terry, Boylston, and 12th Ave stations (the Seattle Times, $).
- New transit challenge: a local couple rode all 10 WA State Ferries routes [*in Puget Sound] in one day (The Seattle Times, $).
- A pilot program will bring Sunday service to the Vashon Water Taxi this summer, expanding sailings to 7 days a week from April 12 through “early fall” (Captain’s Blog).
- Sound Transit is gauging public priorities for its efforts to triage ST3’s costs with a few questions (ST News Release). The short survey is open for an unstated period.
- Help name one of Community Transit’s original buses (CT News). Can you top “Bus McBusBus”?
- WSDOT should include much more higher-speed rail in its upcoming rail plan update (Op-Ed, The Urbanist).
More headlines below.
Other local items:
- King County Council “deadlocks” on how much of a cut, if any, cities should get of a potential 1% sales tax for road maintenance (The Urbanist).
- Recently in Columbia City, SDOT wanted to expand paid parking zones and raise prices; community pushback showed the limitations of demand-based parking policy (City Hikes).
- Seattle city planners want to hear how they can improve the U-District Regional Center (Seattle.gov). Survey open until May 4, 2026.
- The Ave between 42nd and 43rd will go car-free for three Saturdays this summer to test traffic impacts of potential pedestrianization of University Way (The Urbanist).
- A photo-video exploration of Seattle’s liminal spaces (The Stranger).
Further afield:
- Vancouver’s bus grid thickens as TransLink plans to increase frequencies (Human Transit)
- With office rents cratering, some companies in Downtown LA are cutting costs by buying their office buildings (The Los Angeles Times).
- As gas prices increase due to geopolitical instability, electric mass transit becomes even more worthwhile (Next Metro).
- How can Canada build rail transit so cheaply, and what can the USA learn? (McGill Intl. Review)
This is an Open Thread. Comments may discuss any topic related to transit or land use. Uncivil comments will be moderated.
Keller Ferry erasure!
Oops! I’ve updated the post.
Many happy memories on the Keller Ferry to San Poil Bay …
In the article about how Canada can build at less cost than US projects l noticed that the picture showed an articulated Tram with five sections (many European cities have even longer trams.
How wonderful to see jurisdictions that take seriously the responsibly for building a working system.
Unfortunately our poor SLUT is really only 25% complete as it is missing (1) assured traffic signal priority, (2) extension to Westlake Center proper, (3) Traffic enforcement preventing cars blocking the line including the absurd number of time SPD vehicles park on the tracks, (4) Obvious route extensions north either to the U District or Fremont Ballard, (5) lengthening the Trams and stops so that more than just a bus load of passengers can use one vehicle.
Our region seems rather extravagant in throwing out good starter infrastructure, samples being the Waterfront Streetcar (a victim of a bait and switch move by the Seattle Sculpture Park to build a new car barn), or the Eastside Rail Line from Tukwila/Renton to Woodinville (a victim of a hack feasibility study by Sound Transit, it should have studied the line for use with San Diego Sprinter Diesel Multiple Units and not rush hour only Sounder Trains).
I’m hearing the same rumblings about the Monorail on this site when a rubber tired monorail is what will be able address the steep grades needed for a ship canal bridge into Ballard along with reusing the existing mile of Monorail beam way already in place.
Closure of the SLUT before even completing many of the promised supports such as signal priority and frequency and eventual route extensions falls right into the definition of what the US does wrong per transit as described in the article.
Trams only make sense when they are huge. That is the only significant advantage. You can carry a lot more people per trip. Link does that. Imagine if we ran buses on the same pathway as Link instead. We would have to run a lot more buses. While this would be better for riders (much better frequency) it would cost the agency a lot more money. Thus we have bigger trams, called Link.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case with the streetcars. They are bigger than we need. The routes are poor. In the case of South Lake Union, they are redundant. It is basically just an extra vehicle traveling along a corridor covered by buses. The same is true with the proposed extension.
First Hill has a unique route, but a flawed one. It makes a bizarre button hook. It ends too soon in Capitol Hill. It would be much better as part of the 49. Then overlap it with the 60 on Broadway and you would have good combined headways on Broadway (with service every 5 or 7.5 minutes depending on funding).
It also struggles with traffic. This again is because it is a tram. It isn’t easy to add right of way and adjust the path of tram, while it is trivial with a bus. Think of how the new 40 will take a left turn from the right lane. All this requires is paint. If it was a train it would require adding tracks. The same is true on Broadway — it isn’t easy to add passing lanes.
It is even worse for Jackson. On Jackson there are buses and the tram. The tram runs in the middle of the street; the buses run curbside. If it was just buses you would add BAT lanes tomorrow. But instead it requires either moving the tracks or running special buses with doors on both sides. The latter is complicated because we have different types of buses. You’ve got a big trolley for the 7; a small trolley for 14; a big bus for the 36 (and I’m not sure what the 106 requires). So basically it is a mess because it is a tram, instead of a bus. The decision to build trams (other than Link) was a huge mistake in this city and it ended up making transit a lot worse.
I wonder why they can’t run busses contraflow on Jackson and reverse the trolley direction and use the right-hand trolley doors everywhere there. It would complicate the light cycle at the nightmare intersection that is Boren-14th-Jackson-Rainier since you need a dedicated right turn phase from Boren onto Jackson, ideally combined with a queue jump.
Since Broadway has right-hand stops, it could instead use some parking removal in exchange for transit lanes or the full transit mall treatment as I’ve proposed in the past. The main problem with a transit mall or even removing the most egregiously bad use of public ROW possible (public parking) is that it’s a big political lift, at least with the way SDOT operates. You’d think the massive investment involved in laying streetcar tracks would justify a bit of priority but hey, the hypothetical customer that drives is soooo much more important than anyone else and businesses will surely die if the small percentage of driving customers on a heavily pedestrian-oriented street can’t park right in front (even though those spaces are typically taken because there will never be enough space for enough public parking.)
Running contraflow where there’s lots of pedestrians carries notable safety risks. That’s especially true if buses are contraflow but traffic isn’t.
“I wonder why they can’t run busses contraflow on Jackson”
They could run RapidRide G contraflow on Madison but SDOT woudn’t want to. Ross strongly suggested it to avoid the cost and limited choices of buses with left-side doors. The reason it’s not a trolleybus route as envisioned is there was no American manufacturer with a model that had both trolley poles and left-side doors. So SDOT could have made it contraflow and used regular trolleybuses but it refused to.
“Running contraflow where there’s lots of pedestrians carries notable safety risks.”
You just need to make it look psychologically like two streets rather than one four-way street, and then pedestrians’ instincts will be correct: looking at the street from the curb, the nearest lane goes right, and a lane beyond it goes left. The stations are already in the middle, you just need to make the median look more prominent like it’s “between streets” rather than “part of the street”, and maybe have a line of posts or something beyond the ends of the stations.
I wonder why they can’t run busses contraflow on Jackson
So make Jackson one way (for the cars) and then run buses the other direction? If so, which way would the cars go and which way would the buses go? Are you thinking of turning Jackson into a one-way street and King going the other way? Even if you did all that you would still need to move the streetcar.
Contraflow could have worked well for the RapidRide G, west of 8th. You could keep the same direction for the cars. But the bus would go west on Spring and east on Madison (the opposite direction as the cars, AKA contraflow). It would be traveling in its own lane both directions. Contraflow might work for Pike/Pine (west of Bellevue Avenue) along with Queen Anne Avenue/First Avenue North in Uptown. But I don’t see it working for Jackson.
The main problem with a transit mall or even removing the most egregiously bad use of public ROW possible (public parking) is that it’s a big political lift, at least with the way SDOT operates.
Not really. Removing parking is the easiest thing to do. Where it gets tricky is on streets like Denny. They’ve already removed the parking. So now you are either making the street wider or taking a lane. Making the street wider is extremely expensive. Taking a lane means traffic gets rerouted, which has big side effects and can get really complicated. In contrast, taking parking is easy.
They could run RapidRide G contraflow on Madison but SDOT woudn’t want to. Ross strongly suggested it to avoid the cost and limited choices of buses with left-side doors.
Just to be clear, I wanted contraflow downtown (where there are one-way streets). Contraflow on Madison (east of Boren) just doesn’t work. It would mean turning Madison into a one-way street on First Hill and there is no street to pair it worth. For this part of Madison, it made sense to run in the center. That is the only thing that would avoid all the congestion. At that point you have two choices. One is to do what they did (use buses with doors on both sides). The other is to do a “weave”*, like they have proposed on Aurora. The nice thing about that is that you have center running but with curbside service. This means regular buses. That might have worked for Madison, but Madison has a lot of crossing streets so it would have been tricky. In contrast, it is pretty easy to do that on Aurora.
It would also be pretty easy to do that on Jackson. So if we got rid of the streetcars we could run all the buses in the middle and each would do this “weave”. It would be fairly easy, if not for the streetcar.
*Note: I don’t know the term for that. I keep referring to it as a “weave” but there might be an official term that is different.
“I wanted contraflow downtown (where there are one-way streets). Contraflow on Madison (east of Boren) just doesn’t work. ”
Then you would still need buses with left-size doors for mid-Madison, which defeats the purpose of having contraflow anywhere in the first place (to have a wider range of bus model choices at lower cost).
@Mike Orr
It would get the buses fully out of turning traffic. It would essentially mean full bus lanes instead of BAT lanes.
One area that might work well is on Pike/Pine. If auto traffic was reversed then buses there wouldn’t have to deal with right turning traffic.
Then you would still need buses with left-size doors for mid-Madison, which defeats the purpose of having contraflow anywhere in the first place (to have a wider range of bus model choices at lower cost).
No. It would be contraflow downtown and center running on First Hill. Just to back up here, the term contraflow is often misunderstood. It sounds more complicated then it really is. To quote Wikipedia,
a counterflow lane or contraflow lane is a lane in which traffic flows in the opposite direction of the surrounding lanes. … Contraflow Lane: Typically used to refer to a bus lane running against a one-way street through the opposite direction
Here is an example on Fifth Avenue: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WXAWHmCiQDwLxURF6. If you are driving a car, this is a one-way street. But you can ride a bus (or a bike) the other direction. Contraflow lanes are often added where you have existing one-way streets (such as that example on Fifth). They are often paired with other one-way streets so that buses avoid cars both directions (which is not the case on Fifth).
For the RapidRide G, the contraflow section would be where we already have one-way streets: downtown. The pairing could involve the same two streets that the bus already uses: Spring and Madison. Spring (which is one-way eastbound) could have a contraflow lane westbound. Madison (which is one-way westbound) could have a contraflow lane eastbound. This means that a bus from First Hill would turn right on Ninth and then left on Spring. It would go down Spring and up on Madison. It would be running contraflow on Madison until it reached Sixth. At that point, the bus would move into the middle lane, since east of there it is two-way. By running contraflow downtown, you avoid the delays that occur there. This is the biggest mistake they made with the project, and I’m not alone in that opinion. Some Metro planners have said the same thing (privately).
But for the rest of Madison (east of the freeway) center running makes a lot more sense. Contraflow isn’t an option unless you turned that part of Madison into a one-way street. That just doesn’t work (for reasons that are fairly obvious).
The same thing is true with Jackson. I don’t see them turning Jackson into a one-way street. Even if they did, the only pairing that could work is King, and that is problematic as well. Oh, and this doesn’t solve the problem. The streetcar would have to be moved in order to run contraflow.
It makes way more sense to just add BAT lanes or do the “weave” center-running technique. Both of those work with regular buses. Unfortunately, either approach is made much more difficult because we have a streetcar. Thus the tail is wagging the dog here. We are thinking about spending a bunch of money on several different types of special buses (some trolley, some not) so that we can accommodate a poorly designed and unnecessary streetcar line that encounters plenty of traffic elsewhere.
One area that might work well [for contraflow] is on Pike/Pine.
I agree. The other alternative is to turn Pine into a transit mall (like Third) with buses going both ways. There are advantages to each approach. I’ve been meaning to write about it.
I don’t see why they cannot do curb-size bus lane that doesn’t share lane with right-turn. Perhaps the concept of BAT lane make SDOT worry people will ignore the extra layer of restriction and just treat it as BAT lane.
Because part of Madison St is so tight, cars/trucks turning right trespass on bus lane all the time. Considering there are other routes running on some blocks of Madison St in First Hill, I feel like building curb-size bus lane is the better solution than center-running one.
The countraflow lane will have additional impact to speed on both bus and private transportation because there is no buffer and the general-purpose lane is just 10-ft. It is a recipe for head-on crash that SDOT probably doesn’t want to risk.
The appropriateness of contraflow seems heavily affected by stop signs and signals.
If the signals are timed to move traffic in one direction, adding a contraflow bus would mean that that bus would get stopped at a light at almost every block. That really slows down a bus!
Retiming the lights to give preference to contraflow buses would then throw off all the sequencing of the other traffic, quickly limiting throughput and and backing up vehicles and making Downtown fully gridlocked.
It’s possible to create a special bus approaching cycle — but if bus frequency is high enough (like having several routes on one street so there’s a bus every minute or two) the specialness disappears.
So what about removing signals entirely? A contraflow bus could get down the street faster — except for waiting for lots of pedestrians. With lots of pedestrians in a downtown, that travel time advantage goes away.
Add to that, any disruption in the contraflow lane would bring a bus in it to a complete stop. The buses couldn’t zigzag out of the lane and keep going. An instant detour would take several minutes. It’s why a contraflow bus lane is recommended to be at least 22 feet wide (https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/transit-streets/contra-flow-bus-lanes/).
Now add how it affects pedestrians and bicycles. Rather than just look one way, they would need to look at two. The added gridlock would mean that sight distance would be a bigger hassle as people start walking and bicycling between gridlocked cars. Opposite direction buses would be on the left side of the road, so the way that people look before they cross would not be intuitive.
Then there are the block specific challenges of blocking parking garages and loading zones.
It’s not that SDOT isn’t imaginative enough to look at it. Cities across the US have considered it for several decades but found major disadvantages to it. It’s not been a popular solution. Examples exist but they are rare.
There are different ways to create bus only lanes. FTA summarizes it here:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/bus-lanes
It’s seems much easier and safer to create a curbside bus lane, a median bus lane or a two-way transit mall. Even with a median bus lane stop, the waiting island plus the lane added together is going to be less than 22 feet. There’s a reason that Madison doesn’t have contraflow lanes on First Hill for RapidRide G.
There are situations — like where a bus has to turn left twice to reverse direction — where a contraflow lane makes a great solution! It just doesn’t appear to be a ubiquitously good one for a dense urban area with lots of pedestrians..
Finally, I’d suggest that central Seattle needs a full reassessment of circulation in light of all the recent circulation changes. The 99 tunnel moved around side street traffic by closing AWV ramps. The bicycle lanes and tracks created different lane capacity and bigger bicycle connectivity needs. As if just a few weeks ago, Link now has 4-5 minutes frequency through Downtown and that could be leveraged (and enhanced with escalators and an expanded mezzanine system). There remains lots of conflicting ideas about what to do about Third Ave. God only knows what to do about the streetcar. If ST gets its way, we could see major street closures in the next few years for DSTT2 station vaults. All of this is in a backdrop of wildly changing downtown Seattle real estate economics every few years (like Amazon office space expansion and retraction, and retail and restaurant market declines amidst new residential towers). These are not impacts to just one street at a time . The entire system gets affected. I say this because I sense there is to me a missing systemic circulation planning update step here — and by not having a systemic plan it leads to lots of speculation on how things could work better.
@Ross
I’m sure you’ve already thought of it, but the nice part of reversing auto traffic is that the street wouldn’t need to get rebuilt. A transit mall on Pine would be much better but it would need a street rebuild.
@HZ
I think bus lanes have to be BAT lanes if there are right turns, since otherwise car traffic would cut across bus traffic. Or are you suggesting right turn lanes to the right of the bus lane?
Why would contraflow cause collisions? Wouldn’t a contraflow lane work the same as any other street? We already have contraflow lanes on Columbia (between Alaskan and 3rd).
Oops can someone fix my previous comment.. I copy pasted an excel doc on accident..
[Ed: Fixed]
jd.
“I think bus lanes have to be BAT lanes if there are right turns, since otherwise car traffic would cut across bus traffic. Or are you suggesting right turn lanes to the right of the bus lane?”
Not a perfect example to counter what your point because this one doesn’t have right-turn, but southbound approach of Westlake Ave at 9th Ave has a true bus-only lane at intersection where Route 40 turns left from right-hand side. You just need a transit signal and dedicated phase for that. So yeah if SDOT is ok to squeeze a dedicated phase for bus, it is possible to make curbside bus lane true bus-only.
“Why would contraflow cause collisions? Wouldn’t a contraflow lane work the same as any other street? We already have contraflow lanes on Columbia (between Alaskan and 3rd).”
Well I think you are right about Columbia St. I saw Columbia St more like a street with busway on eastbound and general-purpose + bus lanes on westbound. I think the challenge for Madison St is that it runs general traffic on both directions, so there will be two sets of double yellow solid strip if contraflow bus lane is installed.
Has anyone noticed the Double-Decker trips on the 6:30a 424? I find that interesting, maybe preparing for the future 908. I just cant imagine a double decker at Evergreen point rd. Lol. I honestly think that having a double decker over the longest floating bridge is more interesting than a train over the 2nd longest floating bridge (since I am very biased to buses).
I hope double deckers don’t spread because there are only a few seats in the bottom middle I can easily get to, and even moderate ridership fills them. It’s hard for me to go up and down the stairs to the second level or go up the step to the back half, and the seats in the back half were so high up I couldn’t even get up to them, so the back row was the only place I could sit, and of course it doesn’t take many people to fill that too. It’s doubly problematic if I’m carrying heavy bags in one or both hands. So stop with the double deckers! Especially on primary Link feeders like the 512.
“So stop with the double deckers! Especially on primary Link feeders like the 512.”
That’s the whole point of the double deckers, also they should go on the 201/202 and not stuff the 909 (which doesn’t deserve them, also when a double decker operates on the 909 it hits a lot of trees). The 201/202 at least have open roads which the 909 operates on such narrow streets (like Ballinger Dr).
ALSO PLEASE OPERATE DOUBLE DECKERS ON THE 907!!!
Idk if they will operate on the 908 though.
ST uses double deckers on longer routes because the service standard is everyone should have a seat. I don’t recall the specifics, but it was something like under a typical load the route shouldn’t have SRO for mor than 15 minutes or something like that, so for the long haul expresses ST uses a double decker to provide enough peak seats, whereas for a local workhorse route might have more ridership but can be handled with an artic that has more room for standing.
Don’t articulated buses have the same number of seats or more than double deckers? Double deckers use less space on the road, but when the difference is 2 vs 3 car lengths, it’s insignificant.
“Don’t articulated buses have the same number of seats or more than double deckers?”
Nope, double deckers seat more people than articulated buses ever could. Double deckers are challenging in terms of standing room only scenarios, like you got to imagine how the staircase would be like and the lack of anything to hang onto on the upper deck.
Double deckers use less space on the road, but when the difference is 2 vs 3 car lengths, it’s insignificant.”
Is that supposed to be a 2 Line reference? Man, talk about 4 car trains on MLK sandwiching in between intersections.
Over 20 years ago, Las Vegas made the decision to put double deckers on its core bus route on the Strip.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/home/article/10627897/las-vegas-rtc-where-image-is-important
I like the idea of double deckers but Mike points out some serious concerns. I’m just whining but “our” double deckers are lame; I have to crouch to walk upstairs. They are more like an attic conversion. I’ve ridden the 2X buses in London and what we have are not even red.
Yes, one of the things about that article:
Las Vegas bought European buses. The cheaper maintenance, better parts support and better construction makes it a better investment than trying to meet the buy America requirements.
“I have to crouch to walk upstairs”
I have to too, and it’s also hard for me to walk bent forward. I’m 5’10”, so not particularly tall. Another issue is worrying that if I want for the bus to stop before going down the stairs, the driver may close the doors and move on before I can get to the door.
Are all double-decker buses half-height in the upper story?
I believe that to be the case. If you’re 6′ tall you have to duck. I get they have to make the 13’6″ bridge clearance but if none of the routes have this then change the damn requirment!
“I get they have to make the 13’6″ bridge clearance”
Or just don’t use double-decker buses. When I was a child I asked my mom why there weren’t any double-decker buses here like in London, and she thought it was because of the low bridges and overpasses.
Throughout my youth and young adult life I thought double-decker buses would be better than articulated ones, until I tried them. The first time was in London in 2002 on a night bus. I stood in the bottom near the stairway, but I saw how much space the stairway took up and thought, “That takes up a significant amount of the space.” Later in the 2010s I took the 512 and sat in the upper level. The stairs weren’t as much of an issue then but walking while stooping was. Since then I’ve taken the 512 a few more times and stayed in the bottom level: sometimes I can get a seat in the middle area, sometimes I have to stand, and once I went to the back section and couldn’t get up to the seats until I found one in the very back row.
“Las Vegas bought European buses.”
It was just the very first batched of Envir500 that was assembled overseas. Those built 2010s were all assembled domestically to meet Buy America Act.
From agency to agency, the buying power is too small to attractive healthy competitive, but US market as a whole is probably still attractive to European brands, but almost every foreign brand ended up being bought by NFI…
“I hope double deckers don’t spread”
I think they just need to make every seat on lower level priority seat.
“Are all double-decker buses half-height in the upper story?”
I believe they have different options ranging from 12-10′ to 14-1′, but guess why double-deckers are not popular in NL, Germany or France?
UK brands are really just popular in right-hand-drive countries they colonized in the past. Somehow ADL got into North America market really well (probably because here we like big stuff?)
It is really just North America where transit agencies use this type of model predominately for commuter express service. Hongkong and London use double-decker for all types of service which is insane.
I’d say every major European brand’s best-selling line has a suburban variant that features slightly higher floor (not as high as those MCI buses) to maximize seats but still maintain low-entry for accessibility. This type of model is nowhere to see in North America. That’s probably what you are looking for.
“I believe that to be the case. If you’re 6′ tall you have to duck. I get they have to make the 13’6″ bridge clearance but if none of the routes have this then change the damn requirment!”
Bridge clearance is one thing to look for, Tree canopy along street is another issue. I believe that’s what led to 424’s detour in Monroe last year. it is definitely not a problem for Las Vegas because they ain’t got no tree along the Strip.
No, it makes perfect sense. They need the capacity but also need to be able to maneuver (i.e cut people off) in bumper to bumper traffic. Watching this in action from the front of the top level was a highlight of visiting London. Way better than riding the London Eye. A trailer bus like we use here with our huge mostly empty roads simply wouldn’t work. Also there’s the size of bus stops. DT London real estate is at a premium so you want to make the stops as compact as possible.
“No, it makes perfect sense. They need the capacity but also need to be able to maneuver (i.e cut people off) in bumper to bumper traffic.”
Yeah it makes sense for London because of its super narrow streets from pre-car era. TfL gave articulate bus a trial a while ago and they 18-meter Citaro failed. That’s understandable because London’s double decker buses are mostly 2-axles E400 which are 33-37 ft, but Hongkong has relatively wider streets and turns and their fleet is mostly 40ft. 40ft single-unit makes wider turn than 60-ft articulate.
That’s especially the case for US-standard 40-ft model because they have longer wheelbase than European models.
Community Transit is phasing out the 424 in June. It will be replaced by a new route 908, as part of their express 900 series that connect cities and towns in Snohomish County to light rail. The 908 will serve the cities of Snohomish and Monroe, and connect to Link at the downtown Bellevue station via SR522 and I405. It will no longer cross the 520 bridge.
“Community Transit is phasing out the 424 in June.”
Wrong, they can’t just do that in June. They’ll do it most likely in October, I wanted the 908 to start when the 2 Line Crosslake Connection opened but I guess they’re not doing so because of the 2026 FIFA World Cup…
Overrated ahh sporting event that scares the life out of the Puget Sound transit agencies and fear severe crush loads, let’s admit they’re going too far.
The convention of having service changes all together in March and September is just a convention. Community Transit can change any route any time it wants.
“The convention of having service changes all together in March and September is just a convention. Community Transit can change any route any time it wants.”
Cap, they have to legally and locally convene.
Screw anyone from there going to anywhere north of Seattle and want to transfer to a route on the 520 freeway stations! 🤡 At least the old stops wouldn’t be too bad if you go to Bellevue… Just transfer to 532/535. The new ones basically cripple trips to SLU, UW, etc.
We need a Metro route from Woodinville or UW Bothell to UW (via Totem Lake Freeway Station) as an express with the freeway stops. The 255 is too slow and for local trips.
The 256 can also be deleted as Metro is already planning a Woodinville-Bellevue peak hour route.
“We need a Metro route from Woodinville or UW Bothell to UW (via Totem Lake Freeway Station) as an express with the freeway stops.”
Ross has been advocating for that: an all-day express from Woodinville to the 405 and 520 stations to UW. That would serve Woodinville better than a shuttle to the S2/S3 freeway station, and would serve other needs in the northern Eastside that aren’t being addressed.
LOL Scooby, bless your heart. Mike is right, they can do this any time because their board adopted the plan two years ago, before Lynnwood Link opened. The date is June because ST was forecasting a late-May open date for cross-lake up until late Q1.
I thought the system of limiting service changes to specific times each year was part of agency agreements with operator’s union(s) to give operators time to understand and prepare for potential changes in their assigned work?
“I thought the system of limiting service changes to specific times each year was part of agency agreements with operator’s union(s) to give operators time to understand and prepare for potential changes in their assigned work?”
Yes that’s likely a big factor. Agencies must develop operator schedules, and those are put into a series of thousands of “run cards”. Then the union drivers have process by which they choose which run cards that they agree to drive based on seniority rules..
There is also the need to print and electronically distribute new schedules, and change bus stop numbers and schedules on many signs, and maybe install new sign poles too. It probably doesn’t take as long, but it does require at least a few weeks of preparation. And I believe that there are also advance noticing rules if a stop is closed or moved or a route is eliminated.
It’s structurally not ever going to be a quick process.
Community Transit indicated that 908 will run more trips than 424 does. I guess there is some improvement out of it.
The agencies make tweaks four times a year under normal circumstances. That coincides with their collective bargaining agreements, as they schedule the employee’s’ work on a quarterly basis.
King County Metro MUST order double deckers, I can see them going on the 101/102, 111, 162, 177, 193, 218, 255, 271, 303, and the 322. PLEASE ORDER ADL ENVIRO500 BUSES!!! ST should also order more double deckers for their Metro operated routes.
Though the King County Metro livery would look weird on a double decker, the livery should be like the ones on their battery electric buses (they would look nice).
Can Metro bus bases and maintenance facilities support double-deckers?
Oops I forgot about that, you would probably need a new bus base to charge all those battery electric double deckers or expand a current one. Though imo I would prefer a bus base to store and charge double deckers on the future Boeing Access Road station site over the infill itself.
Having DoubleDeckers in Metro routes is an open invite for nuisance behavior in the upper deck. Think of what happens in the back of the bus on certain Metro routes. Just imagine having an entire upper deck that is out of sight of the driver and other passengers to do whatever the eff you want. Scary. Unfortunately in Seattle, we can’t have nice things.
“Having DoubleDeckers in Metro routes is an open invite for nuisance behavior in the upper deck. Think of what happens in the back of the bus on certain Metro routes. Just imagine having an entire upper deck that is out of sight of the driver and other passengers to do whatever the eff you want. Scary. Unfortunately in Seattle, we can’t have nice things.”
And what about security cameras? Every CT double decker I’ve seen has a CCTV on the upper deck, and do you really think “they” will get on these buses? Metro double deckers would be primarily for I-5 and commuter routes NOT those routes you’re thinking of (e.g: the E, the 7). The only issue I would see is the 101 and maybe the 102 (which I don’t think would be a big issue) in terms of safety, though I don’t think those peak commuters would be much of a nuisance.
With all that said, I still think “those” people would aim for the back. The back is more of a target than the upper deck itself.
“King County Metro MUST order double deckers,”
Why?
“Why?”
Because CT has had great success operating them but they’re becoming obsolete now with Lynnwood Link. Metro would probably have better success with them speaking that they seem to want the 101’s connection to Seattle to be permanent and their obsession with First Hill commuter buses. Let’s not forget Metro has higher ridership and better frequencies than CT so why not?
The double decker idea also comes from Kitsap, because they’re debuting battery electric double deckers and since regular Metro livery (green, black, and yellow) would look weird on a double decker… We should use the battery electric livery! (it would be perfect timing too)
So should we spend money on this (to be a successful) battery electric double decker project or a 1 Line infill at a dead location with nothing to do for miles and only one bus route?
All those routes don’t have nearly enough ridership to make it worth. And too many stops in between. Articulated buses make way more sense.
The 193, 212, 218, 256 (and maybe the 101 and truncated 102 not going to Fairwood) could use them. The 177 should be deleted.
Or Metro should bother to make more routes like the above mentioned with few stops but designed to travel far and fast, connecting well with local transit.
Well Jordan, the solution is to fund the police and security. And punish violators. I doubt that’ll happen though.
I think King County Metro has concerns that double deckers would not fit under the trolley wire on third. The only routes that use double deckers in downtown Seattle use 2nd and 4th or 5th, not 3rd, where the trolley wire is.
I was quite surprised to see a CT double decker headed north on I-5 around 9 at night near the Skagit County line a couple weeks ago.
I had no idea Stanwood had that type of magnet night life on Thursday evenings.
Are you saying it was headed to Skagit County or towards Stanwood? If so, what would a CT bus even be doing in Skagit County?
CT should run an express bus from Lynnwood to Skagit Station btw, if not it should be ST’s job with Skagit Transit paying for the segment between Everett Station and Skagit Station (taking over the 90X). It can be an extension of the 512 with stops at I-5/4th, I-5/116th, and Smokey Point TC.
Probably not Stanwood I-5 P&R.
I think it was a Stanwood bound bus. The route travels on I-5 northbound until it’s almost in Skagit County, then goes west to Stanwood. The last 905 of the night leaves the freeway around 9:30 at night, so that would have been about right.
Yup. That was route 905, you saw. It’s a Stanwood to Lynnwood express route that used to run only a few times in the AM/PM peak. Now it has expanded to hourly all day service. And it only runs to the park & ride, not even to downtown Stanwood. I’m not sure what CT was thinking but the route is a complete waste.
@Jordan, no, it does run to downtown Stanwood, hourly all day. I’d be interested to hear how many riders it gets.
The 905 was half-hourly till the latest shakeup, so I’m guessing not all that many…
I love the article about the Vancouver bus grid. I know Skytrain gets most of the praise here on STB but the city has solid bus service as well. The lines are super intuitive and run so frequently that any transfer penalty is minimal. Vancouver punches way above its weight for a city its size.
The combination of incredible dense overall land use and no freeway within the city proper, plus a dense suburban outer area, makes it really easy for Vancouver to do transit well. They get more bang for their buck in terms of service hours invested than metro Seattle ever can. If land use in Seattle and its suburbs were at the same levels as VAN then we certainly could perform at the same level as them, but until then it’s just not gonna happen even with the same frequencies.
Vancouver’s population isn’t that dense. There are some skyscrapers close to a few stations and that could contribute to the high SkyTrain ridership — not the huge number of riders that take the bus. In terms of freeways, they don’t run through the city (like Seattle) but they do have freeways that run to the center of the city (like BC 99). The cities are actually remarkably similar in terms of land use and auto-oriented infrastructure. The big difference is the transit system.
Vancouver built a system where rail and buses can work together really well. It helps that the metro is automated. This allows it to run more often. But it is quite likely the train would run more often simply because of the layout. The stations are closer together, which means it has a lot more ridership per km which in turn means more riders per service hour.
Meanwhile, the station placement allows the buses to work very well with the trains. By and large, the buses aren’t making big twists and turns to try to reach a station. The expansion plans on Broadway will dramatically improve the grid as well, replacing buses that carry massive number of riders on a relatively slow pathway. Oh, and that is another difference. They aren’t just focused on expanding rail to downtown — they are actually building a rail grid for the middle of the city, which will enhance the overall transit grid. We considered such a thing (Ballard to UW) but instead chose to focus on West Seattle. This means replacing buses that are quite fast with trains. This, despite the fact that the express buses don’t carry that many riders. They have similar trips from North and West Vancouver but they aren’t obsessed with replacing them with rail.
The only place where the two systems start to look similar is in the extensions to the more distant suburbs. But with Vancouver this is basically an add-on. It is not universal, either. No one is focused on having the Canada Line reach the American border. But the Expo Line will extend deeper into Surrey — all the way to Langley — which is a long ways for a metro. This isn’t that different than Link going to Federal Way. But that isn’t really the main focus of the line — at worst it is an extension that just goes too far (for various political reasons). In contrast, Federal Way is seen as a stepping stone in our system. To be fair, this is where there is a a difference in terms of density. Surrey is a bit like downtown Phoenix — skyscrapers with a lot of houses on small lots nearby. Federal Way is a lot like that but without the skyscrapers.
“If land use in Seattle and its suburbs were at the same levels as VAN then we certainly could perform at the same level as them,”
It’s not land use, it’s bus service. The bus service has to be usable in order for people to use it. Seattle and the suburbs could have all the construction growth Vancouver has but still not increase bus service. It’s an independent decision. Transit needs to be full-time frequent, reliable, and fill in coverage gaps and other quirks that cause unreasonably large travel time or excessive walking from bus stops. Vancouver does that, Seattle is only halfhearted, the suburbs are quarter-hearted, and King County still hasn’t put a Metro Connects levy on the ballot for ten years and decided not to this year. So there’s no service hours to dramatically increase service, which is what’s missing.
I believe the biggest reason bus service is so much better in Vancouver is because the land use is so much better. It really operates there more like a “walking accelerator” than in Seattle.
Also the Skytrain’s fastest lines (expo/millenium) have roughly the same average speed as grade separated Link, but since Greater Vancouver is so much more compact than Greater Seattle it makes Skytrain feel faster. Obviously the insane 90 second headways also help.
I believe the biggest reason bus service is so much better in Vancouver is because the land use is so much better.
But again, it isn’t that different. This is a typical block in Vancouver. This is right in the city. Does this look like Montreal? No way. A similar spot in Montreal has way more density. Now look at the nearby station, a few years after it opened. This has more density than the other spot (just a few blocks away) but it isn’t Manhattan, or even Brooklyn. It also has a lot of space taken up by the roadway. This doesn’t look like Europe in the least. It is pretty easy to look at a place like this and assume that a train line — serving stops like this — just won’t get that many riders. But the Canada Line has exceeded expectations from the day it opened. A large reason for that is the grid. By putting the stations at just about every major cross street you make it easy to build a grid. By building a grid you make it easy for everyone — even those that live in single family homes — to get around via transit. Now consider a similar place in Seattle. The lots are at least pretty small, but it isn’t particularly dense. Go to where they could have put a station from a network standpoint. There is some density, but most of it is pretty new (just like the station in Vancouver). But this is a key crossroads. It was a key crossroads decades ago. It is even more so now (with the addition of the RapidRide G). Yet Link basically ignores the network. That is the main difference between the two systems.
There are other differences. Yes, SkyTrain is more compact, with a lot more stations in the urban core. But that is because they built it that way. There was nothing stopping them from focusing on building a “spine” to Abbotsford. If they had, they would have immediately noticed how folks from Langley and Surrey would have a long trip into the city. It would have also cost a fortune. Next thing you know, this “hybrid” system has a lot fewer stations in the city, or even Burnaby. The next line could have been geared towards distance as well. Run out to Richmond, but skip a lot of stops along the way (to save money and make the longer trips faster). While you are at it, run a train out to North and West Vancouver, because sometimes those buses have to deal with traffic. Next thing you know, you’ve replicated our system, with all of its shortcomings.
Oh, and I don’t want to put all the blame on Link. The bus network could be better — much better. I’m not saying Vancouver has a perfect grid (they don’t) but we aren’t even close. Even in areas where we could build a good grid we seem to be focused on 1970s style transit use (transit is for getting downtown — otherwise you are supposed to drive).
Ross, the city of Vancouver (5749/km^2) is much denser in terms of population than Seattle (3591/km^2) and is still denser than Montreal (4800/km^2). Yes there are streets that look low density like you shared but it’s important to remember that a lot of seemingly SFH areas in Vancouver have basement suites. They also obviously have much better TOD than both Montreal and Seattle.
If Vancouver were eviscerated with freeways like every major city in US/Canada both bus and skytrain ridership would be a lot lower. It’s hilarious that the Canada line was a surprise success considering it’s literally faster than driving (even though it’s the slowest Skytrain!). If there were a parallel freeway it would’ve seen much lower ridership.
“I believe the biggest reason bus service is so much better in Vancouver is because the land use is so much better.”
No, it’s because the government has better priorities, the public supports transit more, and the government stands up to nimbys more. Its total priorities are the reason for both world-class transit and respectable density. It’s because Canadians partly see themselves as following British and European traditions, in contrast to the US that follows a radical new way that’s more transit-hostile. Canada has plenty of that too — more than Europe — but less than the US.
In the early 20th century Vancouver followed the same trajectory as western US cities. In the 1950s the government made a major pivot to urban density like Europe and Asia, unique in North America. Older cities had legacy density (Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, New York) but Vancouver turned toward it when the other cities turned away from it. Then immigration from Hong Kong in the late 20th century brought people from a high-density environment who helped build and finance it.
Skytrain was built to serve Expo 86, the Vancouver world’s fair in 1986. The federal government helped fund it to showcase Bombardier, a Canadian train manufacturer, and its then-new automated metro technology, to Expo visitors.
The extensive use of trolleybuses, and high full-time bus frequency in the city, and respectable frequency and Skytrain feeders in the suburbs, was another government decision. It wasn’t because Vancouver was so dense, it was because the same mindset produces both good transit and density.
Not building a freeway through the middle of Vancouver was another government decision that complements the others. I think it was mainly that Canada was so much further behind freeway building than the US and it was less of a priority. The primary clamor was to build the Trans-Canada Highway to connect all the cities, not to go directly into downtowns and have other freeways beyond the Trans-Canada. It inherited highways like 99, and those were gradually upgraded to freeways, but not as extensively or early as the Interstate Highway system I think.
The commonality is a mindset that wants all these things.
Ian,
City limits are always a misleading way to parse something like this out. Seattle has way more land dedicated to industrial and has more park land within the city limits as well. The Duwamish Valley is like 10 square miles with ~10k people. Major green space in Vancouver outside of Stanley Park is either unincorporated or in a suburb, while the major industrial areas are outside the city limits in New Westminster, North Vancouver, and Richmond.
Of course, central Vancouver is still denser than central Seattle, but city limits are almost always an arbitrary example of a region’s history and not something we should use as a point of comparison
Thanks for featuring my little piece about Columbia City parking rates! If anyone is interested in chatting about it, I’d love to hear feedback
It’s a good piece.
While comparing the cost of driving versus the cost of taking the bus/train, it may be worth considering the other costs of driving, beyond parking. This would make it more complicated, and likely doesn’t enter into a car owner’s decision of whether to drive or not on a trip-by-trip basis. But I think it would factor into an analysis of fairness.
The cost of owning a car, plus the incremental cost of driving it to Columbia City (gas/electricity, wear-and-tear), plus the cost of parking – this would all undoubtedly be more expensive than taking transit. On the other hand, most people in Seattle (and I would guess most visitors to Columbia City) already own cars, so a straight comparison between the transit fare and the parking fee is still important.
Thanks!
I generally agree that an all-in costs would come out ahead on transit. But it’s also hard to convey concepts like depreciation and such to a general audience, and I think parking vs. fares makes the most sense because they feel directly comparable, and are both set by local policy.
Gas prices obviously play some role too, but it would be way more difficult to operationalize that. And I guess higher gas prices would lead to lower parking costs if you did, which I’m not sure makes sense.
While it depends on the vehicle and its source of power, I used to hear that just starting a car from a cold start would use about 1/3 of a gallon. I don’t know what fuel cold starts require nowadays, but it looks like it’s probably between $1 and $2 for many models. Or maybe not!
Engines have advanced such that “cold starts” aren’t really a thing outside of the severe cold regions, and those regions usually use block warmers to avoid those issues. Today, “warming up” an engine before driving is discouraged as it’s unnecessary for new cars and just poses unnecessary wear to the engine.
This has been “Car Talk” with Seattle Transit Blog
I liked your article. I’m also on board with higher parking fees, though for demand-based reasons rather than bus fares.
Another approach that Seattle could look to is parking benefit districts, essentially spending any collected parking fees on the surround neighborhood. I think the benefit of generally higher community buy-in would be worth the administrative overhead:
https://parkingreform.org/playbook/pbd/
And a brief thought on bus fares: ORCA should lower monthly pass cost to incentivize riders to buy monthly passes rather than paying per-trip. Once someone has a monthly pass, the marginal cost to ride transit is $0. Right now a monthly pass is $108 and a single ride is $3, meaning the breakeven point is 36 rides, which is far too high in my opinion.
Eh, I’m not very high on parking benefit districts, but mostly because I’m not really in on market pricing for parking in general. I think market mechanisms have the illusion of fairness, but really are implementations of price discrimination. I obviously don’t really mind this in the context of parking, since I think parking costs are broadly far too low, but I think it’s bad public policy to rely on “the market” to regulate things.
I feel like important part the set parking policy to be on par with transit is that it is obviously fair. The current system generally overcharges transit riders relative to drivers, and I think that’s a better political message than “market pricing for (often free) public good”. A business may not like it, but at least in Seattle where transit riding is relatively normalized, it would be difficult to articulate the policy as being unfair to customers or something.
The purpose of market price isn’t to be equitable though, it’s to guarantee parking availability and reduce the number of people circling the block. A side benefit (or perhaps downside from the business owner’s perspective) is that it disincentivizes driving to high-demand areas.
What would be the purpose of tying parking costs to transit? If it’s to reduce the cost of transit relative to driving, then I think there are better mechanisms for that (ORCA LIFT or lowered monthly passes, for instance). If it’s to feel more fair for business owners, then I think a parking benefit district would work better as a quid pro quo. If it’s to reduce the number of people driving altogether, then it would be better to convert parking spaces to something else (though that would likely be even more of a political lift..)
I’m not sure that tying parking prices to transit prices is fair in practice, especially in areas with very low or very high demand. I.e. Ballard Locks parking and morning parking should probably remain cheap; parking in Manhattan should probably be more expensive.
jd,
I’m aware of the arguments for market based pricing, but I disagree on principle. I think it’s more important to have a roughly fairly priced transportation system than it is to have efficiently managed curb space.
The purpose of tying parking spaces to transit costs is that it’s a transparent and morally defensible way to charge for parking in high demand areas. It should never cost more to ride the bus to a popular area than to park a car in that same area. I agree that transit passes should be less expensive too, and that reducing transit costs is one way to address this general issue. But fare policy is more complex than just the issue of getting to high demand non work areas.
And as someone who has taken the bus to Ballard Locks more than once, I don’t see why parking there should be cheaper than riding the 44.
Market pricing for parking has two issues: it’s wonky and perceived as unfair. A transit fare based cost is much less wonky, and easier to explain why the rates are set the way they are, and so more likely to be perceived as fair. The specifics of implementation could have some more nuance than my article’s analysis, but I stand by the principle. If we charge fees for service, they should be justifiable by more than just gesturing to a more efficient market.
I think it’s time to abandon the idea that ample parking and great transit service can co-exist along major corridors in dense neighborhoods. The Rainier Avenue corridor can’t support both lots of parking–at whatever price–and really frequent, high-quality transit service. Market priced parking simply isn’t going to generate enough revenue to support a bus every 5 minutes.
Imagine Rainier Avenue from 23rd Avenue to Henderson Street with lots of cheap-to-build 3-story housing structures offering limited or no parking. One continuous transit lane on the whole corridor and one general purpose lane in each direction. Shopping, restaurants, services located at the major intersections with crossing transit lines. That land use model couldn’t be ubiquitous throughout the city, but where there’s an opportunity to implement that type of model, buses could run every 5 minutes or better without diminishing people’s mobility, standard of living or happiness. We have to make the choice between great transit or guaranteed parking availability.
Time is money. The marginal cost of using transit even if you have a monthly pass is typically the extra time vs driving. That said there is a time component that’s usually ignored with car ownership. You have to make time to go to the gas station. You have to have the car serviced (or spend a bunch more time waiting for the tow truck). Hopefully you’ll wash your car and occasionally remove moldy sandwiches from under the seats (oowh). And you have to park the car somewhere. Time spend circling looking for street parking or the cost of owning parking. And if you have a garage you have to pull maintenance on that too! A better comparison would be car share services vs transit.
FWIW, I also thing the monthly pass fee is way to high when you have to use it over 30 times to just break even. Maybe Metro/ST is just milking the cash cow of employer paid passes? If you look at a seasons pass for skiing the break even point is usually less than 20 days and that’s for a season that (usually) is several months. What the ski areas like though is; #1 they make their nut up front and don’t have to worry how much snow there is & #2 the more people use their pass the more uber expensive beer, cheeseburburgers and pizza they sell. However, the areas also typically provide free parking with the pass which is a limited resource. Transit really doesn’t have a negative to people using their pass more frequently.
Bernie,
Time is not money. My leisure trips are not accounted for as if I were doing productive work otherwise, and it’s nonsensical to imply it is. There is no “opportunity cost” for me taking the bus to Geraldine’s instead of driving. I am simply choosing a mode which I prefer, and enjoying my ride there.
Even in the context of a commute trip, I find equating time to money to be borderline useless. Like yes, I’d prefer a faster trip, but I don’t have a dollar amount to assign to it. And looking at the geographical distribution of wealth versus time access to high paying jobs won’t exactly prove much. SLU may have ritzy apartments, but Sammamish also exists.
Yes it is. We’re talkin’ margins here. Now, for pleasure trips… how you “spend” your retirement or leasure time that’s different. I think we’re probably in violet disagreement here. I like riding the train. I can do things besides concentrate on the road. Don’t get me wrong, I like driving when the traffic is moving… at least close to the speed limit. I drive up skiing early to open the hill as ski patrol and really like driving before I-90 shuts down with bad drivers or semi operators that should have their license revoked. I guess you have to quantify “quality time”. I’m ahead on commute time if I just compare driving to time on the train. But if I add in the walk time to the station vs walk time to my car I’m way behind. But I stopped using the gym at work because the extra time made my commute via car so much longer. My walk time to the station is now my “gym time” so it’s a positive not a “cost”.
Time is absolutely money.
Lower commute time correlates with happiness.
Transit SHOULD be faster.
Not everyone is riding for leisure. They want to reach places sooner.
The comfort of public transit can buy 10-20% minute slower than a car trip. 20-30% is even still okay. After that it’s not worth it compared to if you just took the car. Also I’m including parking as part of the car trip time… So that is a pretty low bar for public transit. But instead we’re running way way way way slower than a car… Sometimes slower than a bike or walking.
Transit isn’t just a “fun” thing to ride. Maybe some of you on here don’t go to work or school, or don’t rely on transit everyday. The delays, the slowness, everything takes a toll on transit riders.
A good transit system won’t have anyone wishing they had a car and drove instead. But unfortunately our transit system does for many riders.
@South King Resident
Sorry, you’re looking for “money for nothing”. That puts you in rather dire straights.
@blumdrew
But is it true that market pricing is perceived as unfair or that it is too wonky? People generally understand and accept that parking in neighborhoods with a lot of demand is more expensive than parking in quieter ones. And (painting with a very broad brush here) culturally in the US market-based pricing is perceived as as the default mode while policy-based pricing is perceived as unfair and heavy handed.
jd,
I think the backlash in Columbia City to raising rates is evidence of market-based pricing being too wonky. Residents and business owners instinctively compare their area to others, and if downtown rates are lower (for market demand reasons), they will naturally raise eyebrows. And I think people perceive paying for parking at all to be wrong and unfair. In the South Seattle Emerald article, someone is quoted as saying “[$95/two year residential parking permits] are not cheap”. $2/month to store a car long-term on a street is perceived as unfair. There may be different perceptions of downtown areas, but most Americans are habituated to parking oversupply to such an extent that any cost that isn’t zero is too high. Tying parking to something we have culturally agreed is worth paying is easier to defend in situations like that.
And to everyone else: Many things can be true at once: transit should be faster, but strict accounting of time is still a misguided idea. And I do rely on transit every day, thanks for asking. Of course I’d prefer if all my buses were 10% faster, but especially for non-work trips (when I am personally going to Columbia City), I’m not debating if it’s faster to drive because I think it’s weird to account for leisure time like that. I don’t try to pack every possible hour of my day with specific activities that take a specific amount of time, with careful review to see if I could have optimized my leisure time more. I ride the bus to shop and eat in Columbia City because I like riding the bus more than driving a car, and because I view driving as generally bad.
Even in the context of a commute trip, I’m not likely to do strict to the minute accounting of how long it takes to get to work. It’s always faster for me to bike than ride the bus, but my choice between biking or busing is never about time, and is always about if I feel like riding my bike that day, or if I want to get some reading in on the bus.
I don’t like how SDOT doesn’t look at bus frequency when setting paid parking rates and hours. They seem to identify a shortage by formula, raise the rates by formula — then use the proceeds for whatever they want.
I’d be more supportive of bigger parking meter areas and higher rates if the revenue raised was designated for more transit service for the metered areas. But it’s not.
Is anyone experiencing overcrowding on the 2 Line between IDCS and Judkins Park?
I’ve noticed a couple full trains at peak hours between CID and Judkins but not crush loads or anything I’d call “overcrowding”.
Circling back to this after commenting on ST stole the Bus Tunnel, at least in naming rights.
The early extra dwell issues at Judkins Park seem to have sorted themselves out. And no more slowing in the tunnel. The point of simulated service was to sort this out but it seems a week or two of real service was required.
And I used a GPS app that says Link is doing 55mph over I-90. Maybe they pushed this during simulated service? That would be a good reason to simulate! Or maybe the speedo on my Subaru is off 10mph at 65. I know it does read high at 35mph. I did see speeds of 60mph on the bridge but assume that is GPS error. It says 2-5mph while stationary at a stop.
Regarding parking fees, I saw a British podcast this morning (somewhere in the latter half) that said parking fees at some World Cup venues this year over a hundred dollars. One city (I couldn’t tell which one) has no public transit in the stadium area and parking costs $85 or something, on top of the high ticket fees. I also wonder how all the fans’ cars could fit without shuttle buses, so there may be some of those, but who knows what they’ll charge.
I can’t imagine coming to the US and finding a major world event has 1950s-era infrastructure and the country and cities are in denial over it?
Even without public transportation, if event parking becomes high enough, at some point, capitalism will find way for others to undercut them. For instance, nearby business may close the store on event day to rent out the parking spaces. Or, a private bus company might decide to offer shuttle rides from another parking lot a couple miles away. And, of course, Uber, taxis, and similar service. For example, if someone is traveling out of town for two weeks, it normally does not make sense to pay $300 to park at the airport, even ignoring public transportation, when doing the round trip on Uber costs half that.
The exception, of course, is when the event organizers use their private property rights to block pickup and dropoff at the stadium (and use security to turn away people who want to walk in, so no pickup and dropoff at the gate, either). Then, anyone attending has virtually no choice but to pay the parking fee.
I believe that’s Arlington, TX, home of the Dallas Cowboys. My understanding is at one point they had a bus system but its now just dial-a-ride type services
Yup, it’s likely Arlington. Jerry Jones, the Cowboys’ owner, designed the stadium with huge parking lots and no public transit, so he could maximize revenue for events at the 90,000-plus stadium.
Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium, another World Cup site, also is inaccessible via public transit, but that was because it was opened in the early ’70s, when car-centric urban planning was the rage.
When there are no alternatives to driving, the parking cost effectively becomes part of the ticket cost. Ignoring carpooling and all driving alternatives, there really isn’t any difference between a $50 ticket and a $20 parking fee vs. a $70 ticket and free parking. Except, the former generates bad vibes by creating the appearance that the business is trying to trick you into paying more by taking your money a little bit at a time, rather than all at once.
Somewhat complicating this logic, though, people typically go to sporting events in groups, and even when no alternatives to driving exists, carpooling always exists. So, separating parking from the ticket price has the practical effect of offering a small discount to people traveling in groups, and encouraging groups to carpool, reducing the amount of parking needed to accommodate everyone.
“nearby business may close the store on event day to rent out the parking spaces.”
I don’t know if there are any businesses around the stadium. A stadium without transit may be in an isolated location with nothing around it.
There’s nearly always something, even if it’s just an isolated strip mall or industrial park.
“With office rents cratering, some companies in Downtown LA are cutting costs by buying their office buildings (The Los Angeles Times).”
I think this depends on the industry. Specifically tech industry has less interest in owning real estate. Amazon barely owns any of its buildings, especially the newer one. They probably make more profit by dumping their cash in R&D.
There’s a business theory that companies should own as few “real” assets as possible. I don’t understand the justification, though, but it seems like something that’s come out of business admin culture focused on maintaining quarterly growth and market adaptation and synergy or whatever.
“Asset-light” business models: focus on your core competencies and outsource everything else. It allows companies to pivot quickly and shed redundant physical assets when necessary. Asset-light companies focus on their platforms, intellectual property and brand building rather than building a monumental HQ building.
Locally, Sound Transit doesn’t own the buses it operates; it relies on the expertise of Metro, CT, PT to keep the buses on schedule.
It only makes sense if you expect a need to scale up *and* down quickly. Which I’m sure is great for the company leaders, but from experience I’ll say it’s not so great as an employee. But maybe I’m stupid for believing stability is a good thing.
I won’t try to defend the modern corporate ethos (or imply any judgment of your intelligence), but I will say that stability is not something that the modern, neoliberal capitalist clique admires. That’s why they’re building bunkers in New Zealand.
> stability is not something that the modern, neoliberal capitalist clique admires
And boy are we reaping the benefits! In appreciation of STB’s general focus on transit and land use, I’ll refrain from further comment.
California property tax rules on commercial buildings create weird ownership situations.
California capped property tax reassessments on commercial property when it doesn’t change hands. To get around the issue, lots of office buildings are owned by a separate corporate entity that can then sell off shares but appear to keep ownership. They tried to fix the problem in 2020 with Proposition 15 but it failed.
So even if companies are buying them, they’re probably either buying shares in an existing corporate entity, or they bought the building at a cheap price so that they keep the property taxes low in the future when the market rebounds.
Russel Investments bought the WaMu Tower for literally pennies on the dollar. I guess, yes it’s true, concentrate on your core competencies and for an investment firm like Russel they knew a steal of a deal when they saw it. I think Amazon bought the building in the Spring District that REI built for their new corporate office and then after Covid decided they didn’t need. REI made out like bandits on the deal but that was pure dumb luck. The problem with owning office space is you have little to no flexibility. State Farm doubled down on dumb when they moved from the campus they built in Dupont to the old Russel building and then found they couldn’t lease office space in Dupont (ya think?). So they ended up moving back into a space that is now way to big for their needs post Covid when they discovered that… gee, not providing employees that do 99% of their work on the phone with an office (and parking) saves a ton of money AND makes for happy employees which can be hired from virtually anywhere. And anywhere has a lot of time zones which is important to a customer service organization.
The Sound Transit survey is a joke. It is written perfectly to generate responses that will support whatever decision they want to make.
There are no direct questions inviting preferences on specific project priorities. For example, you can’t choose between West Seattle and Ballard, nor select a criterion to prioritize ridership above all else.
You have to use the open ended question to write your personal priorities, which of course will never be reported or considered by the board beyond just “other themes we heard” on a power point slide.
We are all about to be the subjects of one of the biggest gas lights in regional transit history,
I commented where I could that ST needs to revisit the technology to save money in order to fulfill more of the ST3 promises — especially automation. I also mentioned that ST should be looking at vertical profiles and avoid costly, deep urban stations spaced closely together that have awful transfer penalties for riders and were not assumed in the ballot measure. Finally, I slammed them for not analyzing and presenting value-related metrics like travel time and ridership impacts for riders.
ST has terrible public feedback mechanisms. With everything from narrow-framed surveys to public “workshops” that severely limit feedback to ramming major recommendations through at the elected official level without any rider review step to having lots of closed-door meetings with non-riding “stakeholders” looking for financial compensation are all indicators, ST continues to see themselves as a builder rather than a service. Its success through ST2 is mostly because the needed travel corridor needs have been obvious to anyone for decades (even plans from the 1970’s were featuring the same general corridors).
The core problem with ST3 is that outside of SLU and LQA, the projects don’t provide nearly the rider benefit that the projects from the outset through ST2 provides. As long as ST avoids actual analytical discussions, they can chalk all the feedback as mere “opinions” and not give any further consideration to the public feedback. They seem to want to say they got feedback — but that it’s unusable to influence any decisions. They don’t want to admit their own structural culpability in obtaining feedback that doesn’t validate what they want to do.
The problem ultimately goes back to the 30-year (now 40 year or soon 60 year) project shopping spree in 2016. The elected officials were giddy putting projects into the measure — and not realizing how off the original cost estimates were, especially with West Seattle and DSTT2 and SLU/ Ballard.
The engineering consultants involved are still not condemned for their initially irresponsible cost estimates, and instead continue to be rewarded by tens of millions of dollars in recurring contract amendments because of their “familiarity with the project.”
This is a long response that discusses how the survey is related to more systemic issues. But yeah the survey is so devoid of substance it could be considered gaslighting.
Pretentious much?
Yep! I got about 1.5 questions in and realized it was the poster child of a leading survey. I have to hand it to whoever designed it though; they even made the interface work in the favor of getting the response they want. Typically it’s only the way you word the questions. But what would you expect from an organization run by a board that’s only goal (and qualification) is to be reelected.
Sad thing is, as a democracy we are now lead by a population that doesn’t look up from their phones… it’s scary. China’s system is working better than ours… Russia, not so much.
RE RapidRide G:
I noticed that SDOT added concrete at the stops where the plates were so that they can be finally removed. The resolution was almost uneventful.
It seems to me that the vertical alignment would be a rather common project challenge. SDOT should probably procedurally incorporate a field testing step to assess and adjust vertical alignments when adding any new RapidRide stop. This adjustment took 18 months to complete seemingly only because it wasn’t expected.
The errors were discovered during standard inspections, it’s just that the stations weren’t finished until weeks before the opening, so there wasn’t time to fix the errors before buses started running. What’s interesting to me is that SDOT decided to rebuild the roadway to fix the gaps than rebuild the stations.
Lol, Taylor Swift BRT Network got me dying (Community Transit article). Is this supposed to be a reference to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour in Seattle? Probably one of the biggest fears of the Puget Sound transit agencies.
I have a great name idea! How about stupid because this whole shebang is stupid and we’re so stupid to come up with something good?
If Swift BRT gets a Taylor Swift makeover, then Belhop could get a Bad Bunny makeover next. And then maybe Link-in Park?
I can imagine the cost of changing Swift’s brand to Taylor Swift, probably expensive for Community Transit.
Link-in-Park? Is that supposed to be a light rail station in the park or Capitol Hill Station? What’s that supposed to imply? Bellevue Downtown?
Linkin Park is an actual rock band. ST could help sponsor an outdoor concert featuring them.
https://linkinpark.com/
I would look at Marymoor Park as a potential site because they already have a summer concert series. Now that 2 Line is running, it could gain more attendance from transit riders.
https://www.eventticketscenter.com/marymoor-park-concerts-tickets/17678/e?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20454981251
Generally, I think getting ST to help sponsor a summer concert event or series would be great! ST could work with a number of cities to host outdoor performances at some other parks or stadiums or fields near various Link stations.
“Linkin Park is an actual rock band.”
I was talking about how the wordplay even worked, not what it was. Don’t you ever say that again. I bet everyone knows about them, they were popular in the 2000s ok I get it.
ST could help sponsor an outdoor concert featuring them.”
Marymoor Park? I was thinking more Cal Anderson Park than Marymoor Park. Are you sure ST even wants to hire them, speaking of how expensive it would be to hire a famous band when they got a 34.5 billion dollar shortfall to worry about? Of course it could be a fundraiser but I’m still uneasy on if that would offset the whole shebang for the concert and if it would really raise money to bridge the shortfall.
NOW WE’RE TALKIN’. I forget Al, did you have a background in marketing? This is pure genius. People that don’t get it need to look up from their phone.
I was thinkin’ (always dangerous) that Judkins Park is sort of south so why not South Park Station? There are so many great tag lines it could be like the genius Rainer Beer commercials.
“NOW WE’RE TALKIN’. I forget Al, did you have a background in marketing? This is pure genius. People that don’t get it need to look up from their phone.”
Everyone gets it, ok. We’ve had enough!
“I was thinkin’ (always dangerous) that Judkins Park is sort of south so why not South Park Station?”
Haha name a station after a TV show and Comedy Central will sue you.
“Link-in-Park? Is that supposed to be a light rail station in the park or Capitol Hill Station?”
It could maybe be gear the train is in when it’s sitting in the yard or in a siding. “See that idle train? It’s Link in park!”” Lol
RE South Park: There are train stations named South Park in Cleveland and Pittsburgh already. The name would be confused by the neighborhood name here.
Belhop is too lame to even have a marketing scheme.
I think ST is rightfully afraid Link will have some emergency partial shutdowns, like it did during the Club World Cup.
But this round is more predictable, given teething issues with Cross-lake, and Federal Way, and the known lack of deterrence for copper wire theft.
There is no explanation for keeping the 586 going better than some elected official has a relative riding it.
As for transit problems during the Eras concerts, all I recall was that some Sounder trips had to be cancelled after BNSF ran out of staff Sunday after the belatedly-added extra runs Saturday. Bluejays service was planned well in advance. Taylor Swift, less so.
So far, the cross lake connection has been working smooth as butter from my perspective. I won’t normally ever use the 2 line (got to make it down rainier valley) but it’s great to see how well coordinated the interlining at high frequency has been. I just watched a SB 1 line train pull up as I was approaching shoreline south. A SB 2 line came just after I got to the platform, and 4 minutes later I was whisked away to south seattle.
It almost makes up for losing the wildly unique combined bus/train tunnel downtown.
Yeah, but Shoreline South was limited to a small number of peak-direction-only expresses, and now has hyper-frequent service 18+ hours a day, in both directions, serving many more destinations, including UW, southeast Seattle, the airport, Lynnwood, and Federal Way…
And will soon have night owl service in both directions about as frequent as the peak-direction-only express buses.
Sorry for pulverizing your nostalgia for your bus stuck in traffic.
Any updates on Pinehurst Station? It’s scheduled to open in Q2 2026 (which would be this month, May, or June). I’m just concerned over how little to no update announcements can affect the station from opening in time. I’ve been thinking of emailing ST but they’re always so polarized when it comes to these things (e.g: I asked when East Link was going to open and if it would open April 2026 and I couldn’t even stand what they said). I’m just worried and wondering if it will open in time for the Fall 2026 Service Change which might as well be the biggest service change in two years… What will we do?
I was going to reply to another comment for my 2 line report but ya got me with nostagia for the Bus Tunnel (It’s not the DSTT, it’s the Bus Tunnel Damn it! Paid for before ST stole it).
I seem go in early for work. If an engineer isn’t on the clock by 7:30 they are slacking so to support said engineers I try to be in by 7AM. Getting on the train in Bellevue at 6:30-7:00am it’s pretty empty (I like empty). The P&R at Bel-Red also has a ton of empty spaces. All the cars are up front so I think they are enforcing the Commuter Parking Only rule. Dont’ know how but it seems to work. I’ve notice a drop in ridership this week of about 1/3 which I attribute to the looky lews at the start of service. Ridership will no doubt increase as people change from driving or riding a bus as the benefits of Link become more widely known.
Seems like mornings ST has reverted to running 2 car trains which is more than enough when I board at Bel-Red. However, it the afternoon they were running 3 car trains and it was chock full standing room only from South Park to the Swamp & Ride (5PM today, 3PM Tuesday was less packed on a 2 car train) . There were seats until DT Bellevue where a ton of people got off but even more got on. East Main… still a waste. Wilburton, should have been… could bin been a contenda. Spring District at least as many got off as got on which was a surprise. I would have expected a large contingent of Tech Bros getting on to commute back to Redmond. Bel-Red (the station ST build especially just for me) again was a bit of a surprise with about equal on/offs. And more of the people getting off were (like me) walking somewhere other than their car in the P&R. The P&R seems to be getting used at maybe 80% capacity which is also a surprise and it’s not just the expected peak commute crowd. Probably a lot of people going into not just Seattle but Bellevue for the evening… or even Marymoor or DT Redmond. Ridership at Bel-Red is skewed toward DT Bellevue and Seattle but not nearly as much as you’d expect.
I was not expecting East Link to have anything near demand that could easily be handled by two car trains. Seems I’m going to be looking for cheese on sale to go with my humble pie :->
Almost every opening has the same general pattern. First there is a lot of ridership, as people just take it for fun. This bound to be bigger if the weather is nice. In contrast I think there was a muted response with Federal Way Link because it opened in the rainy season. But then (regardless of whether) the folks that have checked it out have done so. It is just ordinary. At that point you have a slow increase. People check it out, but for a different reason. They are adjusting their commute (or other trips they take on a regular basis). In this case it is weird as they have kept the buses. Some people may just be sticking with the buses because it works for them. This is especially true at Mercer Island, which will be a major transfer point when they do the restructure. But for now, a lot of the potential riders are just staying on the train. Of course it is hard to tell what is happening since ST isn’t reporting ridership anymore.
Yeah but this is really different. Opening a cross lake route is a lot more than just the view. Bellevue (I wish it wasn’t on many levels) is a major City with employment and rapidly evolving residences (can’t they move to Nashvillle, please?).
I haven’t heard anything about the Pinehurst opening. I agree, it is weird, given it is months away. That being said, I think it will be done before the fall opening. Worse case scenario, they make the route changes and the station opens a couple months later. The changes in the fall are big on the East Side and significant to the south but pretty minor up north. The 522 will be sent to Shoreline. To backfill, you’ve got the 77. Then at some point, you run that same 77 across to Shoreline. That was supposed to be a two-step process, but ST has delayed the change of the 522. Other than that, you’ve got the change of the (3)72. Those all should happen at the same time (with or without the station).
The contractor is months behind schedule for many reasons but the big ones appear to be related the contractor not knowing how to work with WSDOT to get ramp closures approved in a timely manner and ST needing to delay planned work to maintain service for major events. ST is also expecting to delay work to maintain service during the FIFA tournament. I expect they won’t have a new opening schedule for awhile, and it will probably be end of summer, if not in the fall.
I think ST is right to stall the 522 reroute until Metro offers a sensible restructure with a route serving Lake City Way all the way to 145th.
Will the 522 face reroutes during STRide 3 construction?
“I think ST is right to stall the 522 reroute until Metro offers a sensible restructure with a route serving Lake City Way all the way to 145th.”
Ha ha, you jest. If ST cared one whit about Lake City, it could take care of itself by not rerouting the 522, changing the Stride terminus to Roosevelt, or adding an ST Express route on Lake City Way when the 522 is moved. It doesn’t have to depend on Metro doing anything, much less on a long shot like Metro changing its mind. The Metro restructure is already finalized and approved by the county council. Metro rarely if ever reopens restructures after that stage of the process. The restructure is just being implemented in phases due to the delays/uncertainty in when the 522 will move and Pinehurst station will open (since the planned 77 is also the Pinehurst station feeder).
Would love to see cleaning crews at both ends of the 1-Line to clean trains. I’ve come across everything from soiled seats to food and vomit on the floor to basic trash on the trains. Airlines deploy cleaning crews that perform “quick turns” when planes land then quickly turnaround and fly out. A deep clean would take too long, but a basic clearing of debris would be extremely helpful.
The same should be done on Metro’s busiest routes or in locations where a lot of routes terminate in the same place.
Keeping transit vehicles clean has got to be difficult. Having on-site cleaning at the end of Link routes seems like a good idea.
Aren’t drivers supposed to inspect their vehicle when they arrive at a layover break?
Here is the Sound Transit page tracking cleanliness:
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/clean
Not only is it missing info, it appears that they want to measure cleanliness from rider complaints.
Many transit agencies used to offer ample garbage cans. I’m not sure if that helped or not. Many cans have disappeared over time.
Cleaning teams on buses would indeed be more difficult. But having teams at terminuses served by a lot of routes, such as Aurora Village, Kent Station, 3rd & Washington, Bellevue TC, Campus Pkwy – could help with the busiest routes.
Trimet and BART have teams cleaning their trains at the end of the lines.
There are cleaning crews at both Downtown Redmond (2 Line) and Federal Way (1 Line) terminals. Look for them, they work all days of the week (there is a 1-2 hour gap during PM rush hour at Federal Way on weekdays, due to them staying late in the evening cleaning 4 overnight trains there). Due to the quick turns at Lynnwood, there are no cleaning crews there (except in the wee hours, where they have to clean 3 overnight trains there or at Northgate, depending on track or power maintenance needs). They do basic cleaning with trash pickup, but will clean biohazards too (sometimes the cleaning crew is notified ahead by radio, which light rail vehicle has it, so they are ready to clean when it arrives at the terminal. Sometimes, due to late trains and trying to keep the schedule going, trains will do a quick turn and go back out ASAP. In that case, the cleaners will not clean the train.
https://www.theurbanist.org/wilson-housing-advocates-rally-for-bolder-seattle-growth-plan/
Wilson seems to have kicked things up a notch: upzone citywide within 10 minutes walkshed of frequent transit by 2027
“In contrast with Harrell’s “stingy” half-block-radius approach, Wilson has expressed interest in expanding transit corridor rezones to within a 10-minute walk of frequent transit, a 10-minute walkshed in planner parlance.”
Get ready for density, the blocks west and east of California Avenue SW. Your time of limiting density to a half-block west everywhere and a half-block east in the Admiral District are over.
That would impact the Alaska Junction area too.
The Triangle is already multifamily: it’s the rest of California Avenue north and south of the Triangle where the zoning is egregious and not appropriate for the population level Seattle is now.
Yes the triangle between Alaska, Fauntleroy and 35th is high density. That’s better served by the proposed Avalon station rather than the proposed Alaska Junction station.
A 10-minute walk is about 2000 to 2500 feet. Height limits kick in north of SW Oregon, south of SW Edmunds and west of 44th Ave SW. All these edges are currently between 500 and 1000 feet from the planned station Alaska Junction entrance. This would appear to expand those edges to Dawson, Dakota and 46th.
My comment does not depend on the Link station. The entire California Avenue area should be upzoned, at least from Admiral Way to Morgan Junction and maybe beyond. If the 50/128 or their successor get 15-minute service, there will be no excuse not to. SDOT should anticipate that happening even if it doesn’t know when frequent bus service can be funded. Because it’s clearly an urban corridor and functions like that now. Except only a few people can live west of it, or east of it north of the Junction, because of the inappropriately low density there.
If that area is upzoned, it would make it less important whether other parts of West Seattle are upzoned, so that could be some leverage for a grand bargain.
Yes Mike just like nearly every other part of Seattle, West Seattle is underzoned and underdeveloped for its transit service.
If they don’t upzone California Ave SW’s walkshed, Alaska Junction is going to end up being a boondoggle with no way to ever add back in Avalon St, which better serves the multi-family and affordable housing neighborhoods of route 21.
The C Line will serve Avalon St, but the 21 would have to backtrack on the most congested section of SW Alaska St., or force Delridge Station to be in the toxic dust area, forcing the H Line to head west while the 21 loses its opportunity to continue to the ferry dock.
Once again, Olde Money West Seattle gets the fancy infrastructure first, without having to density, and dense central and east West Seattle get worse than freeway fumes.
You don’t get any disagreement from me, Brent. I’ve often said that ST should have considered putting the last West Seattle station under Fauntleroy with exits at Alaska and Fauntleroy and at Oregon and 37th. A long-term detour to a Fauntleroy closure to allow cut and cover construction looks quite doable to me.
SDOT has proposed closing Alaska Street to traffic between Fauntleroy and California, and making it a transit mall.
The most recent incarnation of West Seattle Link eliminated the rail tracks. Tail track costs were a major factor in why ST didn’t place the end station at Fauntleroy a few years ago.
Of course, ST summarily ignores any suggestions from a citizen. Maybe Wilson’s push to densify wider areas around stations will spur more influential neighborhood activists to advocate moving the station — but it’s probably too late.
Al moving the station to Fauntleroy would mean closer to the golf course which would mean lower up zoning potential in the walk shed. If anything the station should be further west than currently planned 40th Ave sw. I think the current placement is pretty good.
@ Ian:
The current proposed Avalon station site is significantly closer to the golf course.
This option would have been an alternative to eliminating the proposed Avalon station rather than skipping it altogether (the current cost cutting plan). It would put existing Avalon Way apartments closer to a station entrance if that station was eliminated as now proposed.
@Al S., epic typo! The last West Seattle Link plan “eliminated the rail tracks”? What, are they finally thinking of using BRT? If only!
@ William C;
I typed TAIL tracks but auto correct kept changing it! 3 times! Arggh!
“Olde Money West Seattle gets the fancy infrastructure first”
I don’t think it’s typical single-family residents pushing so hard for Link. Just one of them, Dow Constantine. Most single-family residents don’t live within walking distance of the proposed stations, and many of them drive because they bitch whenever the high bridge closes or the low bridge is transit-only. So it’s hard to see them saying “ST must build West Seattle Link! We need it now!”
A group saying that did emerge at the ST retreat, but it’s unclear who they are and whether they represent predominantly old-wealth West Seattlites, single-family homeowners, apartment dwellers, business owners, or which demographic(s).
BINGO! Give that man (Mike) a cigar. Hell, I’ll pay for a free tire rotation next time he transfers from Metro to Link at 130th!
You know what would be really cool? If we put stations where it was most cost effective due to the topography and street grid, and then we updated zoning in response to the new infrastructure. If only there was a local governing entity that has control over zoning!
For the first time my morning commute (Then: KCM bus transferring 550; Now: bus transferring 2 Line) took just 60 minute (normally 70+ min).
I boarded an eastbound 2 Line from Symphony Station at 8:13 am and it arrived Bellevue Downtown at 8:36 am. Even with that it slowed down significantly during the I-90 ramp climb and then before approaching Mercer Island. So a faster eastbound travel time than current schedule is definitely not a dream.
I notice again that when train was traveling inside Mt Baker Tunnel, it was shaking a lot (laterally). I don’t know if anyone else feel that way.
I noticed some eastbound shaking inside the Mt Baker tunnel on opening day.
Yeah I noticed that on opening weekend first, but don’t remember I had that last week.
On the opening weekend, I could barely stand still if I didn’t hold anything. This kind of movement reminds me of rubber tire people mover in airport. Steel wheel guideway rail usually doesn’t have this issue. If something is wrong, high-pitch noise comes first (like BART).
I haven’t notice side to side movement (hunting?) in the Mt Baker tunnel. I have noticed that the trains aren’t slowing to a crawl like they did last week. Also haven’t seen any extraordinary dwell times at Judkins Park like there were when the 2 Line first opened so maybe they are ironing out the interlining better. I have noticed that some trains, not most, have a huge amount of wheel squeal going through the minimum radius turns in the DT Bellevue tunnel. I don’t recall if wheel maintenance (grinding) was something they can do at OMF-E or if they have to take the trains to Seattle to get that done.
I notice the older trainsets hunting through the Bellevue swamp. Mt Baker seemed fine.
They all go very slow through the Kemper Freeman tunnel.
I recently noticed extreme hunting on the downhill trip to Marymoor in a KinkiSharyo car. In a recent post, I commented about the differences between the Kinkis and the Siemens railcars and a commenter mentioned that the Kinkis have a greater tendency to “hunt” (lateral movement as the wheels slide or oscillate on top of the rail).
There is a great video on YouTube that explains why the taper on the wheels not only keeps the train centered on straight tracks but functions as a “differential” when a straight axle bogey has to go around a curve. If ST doesn’t keep the wheels and track in tip top condition then…. well.. not good.
Here is the afternoon experience.
Fewer riders than last Thursday as some of those commute between Seattle and Redmond probably found out this is not for them, but train seem to run faster than last week or maybe I got lucky. Here the departure time at each station.
4:33 Bellevue
4:45 MI
4:50 JP
4:53 slowdown at DSTT connector ramp
4:55 doors opened at ID/C
Here’s my commute today if you want more data. My train car was SRO but reasonably comfortable past Bellevue. Very rough estimate 75% of capacity
5:27 bellevue
5:32 south bellevue
5:37 mercer island
5:43 judkins park
I’ve noticed the same thing; running much more smoothly this week. Also using more 2 car trains. But they seem to be getting a grasp on when 3 car trains are needed. I’m spending way more time commuting with Link than driving but that’s because I have a 20 min walk to Link vs a 30 second walk to my car. But the 40 minutes walking is a huge plus as I quite using the gym at work because the extra time at work made my commute ugly with traffic as Amazon and others started ordering more peons back to the office. The walk and the time on the train are “me time”. Time is money. I’m opting for Link because it gives me way more “me time” than fighting I-405/I-90 traffic. I love to drive. If everyone on the damn roads starts using transit I’ll quickly shift back to driving. Wasn’t that the point of building Link in the first place? ;-)
Bernie, best of both worlds. Park and Ride.
Fridays seem to be Friday light. I guess with flexible work from home options a lot of people pick Fridays to work from home (or not work). However, I noticed today coming home from Seattle to Bellevue that the trains going into town were packed full. ST is running mostly 3 car trains during peak hours and good thing! Overall ridership is way above what I expected. MI, S. Bell. and Bell. DT are the big ridership stations. DT Bellevue is remarkably bidirectional in demand (on vs offs) any time of day. The Bel-Red P&R *aka the Arts District” is used more than I expected. Not like you can’t get a parking space any time of day but I’m guessing the lot is ~80% capacity.
I think it’s good that ST and Metro have delayed service changes so that they can evaluate how much use Link gets at each station. Today the train slowed on the bridge. I thought we might come to a stop. But then it continued on like normal. The bugs from the first week seem to have been sorted out.
I think it’s good that ST and Metro have delayed service changes so that they can evaluate how much use Link gets at each station.
Except that at this point, we don’t even know how Federal Way Link is doing. Maybe they will fix the reporting issues soon, but so far it is all just a mystery.
“We” might not know but ST probably does. They can just ask the drivers. Regardless, FW has little to nothing to do with Eastside bus service and East Link. Or how it’s changing the routines north of DT via the interlining.
I was thinking on my walk home today that eastside service (Bellevue & Redmond anyway) will probably evolve into feeder service to Link. One thing I can see already is that eastsiders are going to be visiting DT Seattle a lot more with the introduction of cross Lake service. At least as long as Seattle doesn’t again devolve into a hell hole.
I’ll make one more observation that others my have noticed or disagree with. MI and S. Bellvw have a large number of users but it’s very directional (the old school commute direction). DT Bellevue has a large number of on/offs but it appears to be pretty much bidirectional which speaks to intra-eastside use.
I happened to be eastbound on the I-90 floating bridge about 5:25. I went by an eastbound 550 bus. It had 4 or 5 riders.
I’ve noticed the shaking as well. Not alarming, but surprising.
It’s a bit alarming base on how high Link is between MI and Swamp & Ride. If the train comes of the tracks the “guard rails” aren’t going to do squat. The disaster in Dupont comes to mind every time I go through that stretch. I guess there is an element of automation on Link that overrides a driver exceeding the design speed that was missing with Crashcades.
Today I spot Metro bus 4502 (XT60) raised pole and reattached wire remotely at the catching pan outside Symphony. Not many drivers seem to know how to do that and there seems to be very few catching pans in our system.