Mexico City elevated trolleybus BRT line. Elevated light rail would have cost 2 1/2 times more. (TransitWorld)
Scooby Doo and the Goblin King has a YouTube channel with raw footage of several Metro, Community Transit, and Sound Transit bus models in action on various routes.
This is an open thread.
OH… The old buses are cheaper argument again. And they are cheaper. (At least until you include having to repave the streets where the heavy buses come to those platforms and turn the street back to gravel.) Only, rail is cheaper to operate on a per passenger basis. One operator, up to four hundred passengers. That is six buses with six operators. Construction costs are a one-time expense. Operating costs run until the sun burns out.
Thank you
This is true in some circumstances, but in places where labor costs are lower and public institutions may struggle to front the higher capital costs for rail, it’s entirely possible for a lifecycle analysis to favor buses. Indeed, this is more or less the genesis of Latin American BRT. Cities like Bogota could have easily justified a metro on ridership grounds, but they lacked the ability to get the financing needed.
To the extent that general trend is true of Mexico City is debatable. After all, they have a phenomenally successful metro. But the trade offs between rapid buses and rapid rail should still be contextualized to the local situation. What’s true (circumstantially) in the US may not be true in Mexico.
I’m sure that funding was an issue for Bogota, but it was the speed of implementation that really drove the decision for BRT. Bogota’s population almost doubled between 1990 and 2010 and there wasn’t a municipal transit system in place that could move people. Most buses were privately owned and had to compete with autos for lanes and riders. The TransMileno network was chosen as the quickest and cheapest way to build a municipal transit system.
Correct, and it works extremely well. However, on a couple of trunk lines buses come so frequently that they interfere with one another’s schedule keeping. So, Bogota is building a Metro above the two TransMi trunks. In fact, the supports exactly surround the TransMi lanes, and intrude on the platforms of some stations.
To my knowledge there is no tunneling, even through the densest parts of the City. Now, I will say that TransMi skirts the edge of some of the high density neighborhoods, so the Metro will too. You could argue that Bogateños would be better served by tunneling under those neighborhoods. But they’re already used to walking four to six pretty lonjg blocks to get to TransMi, so they’ll also walk to the Metro.
There is probably also lack of domestic industry to supply the material required for building rail back then.
If they built rail project in Bogota, they would probably need to figure out where to source all the building materials that is up to railroad grade. I think this situation of lack of industry support to build high-quality urban rail is also applicable in the US, but US has higher labor cost to add to bus operating cost which cancels out the marginal cost benefit of building BRT with light rail or even heavy rail right-of-way level.
But long-term cost benefit sometimes is irrelevant. When agency can absolutely not afford rail, they either build thing that is more expensive to operate in the long-term or nothing. For the same reason, people take loan and pay interest to buy thing they cannot afford out front.
Bogota’s population almost doubled between 1990 and 2010 and there wasn’t a municipal transit system in place that could move people.
Yeah, I think that is one of the things that is important to understand. Bogota added a ton of people within a fairly short period. To put things in perspective, in 1950, Bogota and King County had about the same number of people (around 700,000). In 20 years (1970) King County added about half a million. Bogota added two million. Twenty years later, less than before — around 350,000. Bogota added an additional two million — and then some. Now Bogota has over three times as many people as King County. It is no wonder the bus system is crowded (and they want rail).
They were also a fairly poor city in a poor country. They’ve also had various recessions. Not only is improving the bus system a lot quicker, it is cheaper. Only now can they really afford to invest in a metro.
“they have a phenomenally successful metro”
And Mexico City’s primary transit mode is the metro lines. The BRT lines complement it in medium-demand corridors. The video highlights this. So it’s not like BRT is Mexico City’s only high-volume transit solution. Curitiba, Brazil, and a few other Latin American cities positioned BRT as their only high-volume transit solution. But Curitiba is now upgrading some of them to metro lines. At least the BRT filled the gap until rail could be politically decided/financed, and I guess did it well, because the buses have exclusive lanes, not too many stations, and they come like every thirty seconds.
rail is cheaper to operate on a per passenger basis
Yes, the fundamental advantage of rail is capacity. Thus if you have enough riders it is better to have rail. Another advantage of rail is automation. It is basically the default now for new subway lines.
In most cases it gets a lot more complicated than that. In some cases you can leverage the existing rail system or leverage the existing roadway network. That is the whole idea with “Open BRT”, like in Brisbane. We did that with the bus tunnel. We do the same sort of thing with the SoDo Busway and the HOV-3 lanes of 520. You save a lot of capital. The trip is fairly fast where it would normally be quite slow. Riders avoid a transfer while you provide very good headways on the shared segment (the spine). Rail is often leveraged in the same manner. Commuter rail almost always uses old rail lines. S-Bahn systems combine the commuter/regional rail idea outside the city (where demand is relatively low) with the high capacity subway line inside the city (where demand can justify the high cost of a subway). With enough branches, you provide the same basic functionality of the Open BRT system while keeping costs relatively low.
What you don’t want to do is spend a lot of money on rail where the extra capacity is not needed. Seattle did that, with their streetcars. As a result, we spent a lot of money on a system that is inferior and inflexible. Transit within the city is much worse as a result.
With Link it gets a little more complicated. In most of our system, rail is justified. The trains in SoDo and Rainier Valley may operate like a streetcar, but unlike the lines in First Hill and South Lake Union, the trains carry a lot of riders. Rail is definitely justified. But West Seattle, Issaquah, Tacoma and Everett Link have issues with speed, coverage and demand — making rail a poor choice. For example, the demand within Everett is too small to justify the extra capacity of rail. The demand for trips to Seattle is also fairly small. Worse yet, the existing infrastructure (the freeway) is capable of getting riders to Lynnwood (and thus Seattle) faster. Everett would be better off leveraging the existing “busway” (the HOV lanes of I-5). Tacoma is similar. There just isn’t enough demand to justify a rail line from the airport to the Tacoma Dome. Riders from Tacoma headed to Seattle are better off with Sounder or express bus service to Seattle.
With West Seattle you would reduce maintenance costs by requiring everyone in West Seattle to transfer. From a rider standpoint, buses would be better. You would have to spend some capital connecting the SoDo Busway to the Spokane Street Viaduct but once you did that you would have a busway from Downtown Seattle to West Seattle. This would likely cost billions of dollars less. This savings would pay for a huge amount of bus service (in perpetuity). Riders would be better off, since they would have fewer transfers (which in many cases is out of the way). For example, consider someone from Alki headed to the airport. With an all-day 56 running on the SoDo Busway they take a bus directly to the SoDo Station. With West Seattle Link they are forced to detour to Alaska Junction, followed by a transfer to a train, followed by a second transfer (to go south). What is true for riders from Alki is true for riders from the Admiral District. It is not only trips to the airport that would require a second transfer. Trips to downtown, First Hill, Bellevue, Queen Anne, Fremont — most of the city, really. Issaquah Link is similar to West Seattle Link. Riders would be much better off with an HOV connection between I-90 and 405. Once you do that, they could run a bunch of different buses on the I-90/405 “busway” (which includes service to Eastgate as well as dedicated ramps to Downtown Bellevue). Riders would be much better off.
One of the people I met that works for BVG in Berlin told me there are operations in Germany able to operate a train more cheaply than a bus. Not on a per passenger basis, but on a per operating unit basis.
However, to do so, it means creating circumstances that allow it. Eg: lightweight equipment, single operator operation, non-staffed stations, and a number of other things that would be difficult under USA operating conditions.
Construction costs are a one-time expense. Operating costs run until the sun burns out.
Sure, but at some point the capital costs aren’t worth it. It doesn’t make sense to spend a million dollars to save a hundred dollars a year.
When it comes to transit, operating costs are complicated. Generally speaking, it costs less to run a bus than a train. Thus you only save money by running buses less often. Think about our bus system right now. Are there any buses that we wish came less often? It is really only when you build the exclusive right of way and/or force people to transfer that we assume there will be enough ridership to justify running rail. The former is true in only a handful of cases in greater Seattle while the latter is worse for riders.
Of course the highest operating cost of a bus is paying the driver. If the buses are automated, this goes away. You will still need occasional security (as you have now) but the overall cost of operations gets much smaller. While the dynamic is still roughly the same (New York isn’t going to run automated buses on the subway line) it changes things on the margins. Rail lines that would have made financial sense (in the long run) are no longer appropriate. In many cases, it will be cheaper (and better for riders) to run an automated bus.
So Minneapolis paying off their original line on bus savings along faster than your 20-year mortgage doesn’t count? That even ignores the ever-so-obvious development that has always taken place along rail transit. Milwaukee built a tiny, starter streetcar and registered $4.5 billion in new development downtown. Now, the anti apes will always claim that the streetcar didn’t do that, failing to explain why that did not happen any time in the 60 years from last streetcar run to first. But fine… Let’s say the streetcar is responsible for just 20%. That is $11 million a year in property taxes alone. It costs about $4.5 million a year to run the streetcar. I assume you can do the math.
Omaha sure could, which is why they specifically mentioned Milwaukee in starting their streetcar project, which is now under construction.
So Minneapolis paying off their original line on bus savings along faster than your 20-year mortgage doesn’t count?
Doesn’t count for what? I honestly don’t know what you are trying to say with that sentence.
The rest of the paragraph is a common argument for streetcars: it helps spur development. There is conflicting information on that. A similar investment in bus service (and right-of-way) can have a similar amount of development. It probably depends on the project.
Of course in the case of Seattle, we really don’t need it. We are constantly restricting development. If they allowed more apartments in say, West Magnolia there would be a lot more apartments there (regardless of the quality of transit). So from a local transit standpoint, who cares?
subsribe to scooby doo and the goblin king on youtube
Sorry about that guys, Tate Benjamin isn’t me if you think that’s me it’s a friend at school.
“Only, rail is cheaper to operate on a per passenger basis.”
To actually be cheaper to operate, an agency has to eliminate parallel bus service. ST and Metro seem to not want to do that. You can’t say Link is cheaper by just building and opening it. You have to cancel existing service too. If the rail project doesn’t enhance travel times to the point where parallel bus service can be dropped, it won’t operate more cost effectively and should be rethought.
The best system is the one that actually gets built.
Eh, I think I’d rather have Link as-is than a West Seattle stub-line, or a DSTT that gets closed for 5 years to create a Ballard spur with crappy deep stations.
Isn’t the key cost savings in the non-elevated part of the line, where the trolley buses can operate at-grade on a regular street?
The startup costs for rail are significantly higher, it takes substantially longer to get a rail line, once it’s built, it can’t be changed, and they have significant operating costs as well, as Sound Transit is finding out with their numerous delays and downtime for maintenance. Trains are appropriate for high density areas, such as the I-5 and I-405 corridors in King County, but BRT is appropriate for medium density areas, such as where Rapid Ride and Swift currently operate. A busway is superior in that it can cover the route that multiple routes take, then at either end of it deviate into unique destinations. There is no “one mode fits all.”
[Light] Rail built from scratch not making use of existing right-of-way when compared to Freeway Express Buses [“BRT”]
is roughly 4 times as expensive.
Making use of available contiguous railroad right-of-way (i.e., the Interurban alignments) are comparable, if not actually less expensive than “BRT”.
(Especially when transit funding is being used to enhance vehicular infrastructure)
Yes, I wrote about that up above:
Rail is often leveraged in the same manner. Commuter rail almost always uses old rail lines. S-Bahn systems combine the commuter/regional rail idea outside the city (where demand is relatively low) with the high capacity subway line inside the city (where demand can justify the high cost of a subway). With enough branches, you provide the same basic functionality of the Open BRT system while keeping costs relatively low.
The problem is, there isn’t that much old rail around here and worse yet, we don’t own it. In contrast, we own a huge amount of roadway infrastructure. But you mentioned something a bit different:
Making use of available contiguous railroad right-of-way (i.e., the Interurban alignments) are comparable, if not actually less expensive than “BRT”.
Once you pull out the tracks and pave over the roadway you are back to the streetcar situation. It is cheaper to just run buses on that same corridor. Unless, of course, you have a lot of people riding the streetcar. Then you can run the streetcar less often, while carrying the same number of riders. A good example of this is Paris. They have an excellent Metro. They have an excellent (surface) bus system. But some of the buses were so popular that they had to run them every couple minutes (just to avoid crowding). So they have replaced many of those buses with trams (that run less often). The agency saves money and riders are only a little bit worse off (the tram comes very five minutes instead of every couple minutes). With bus bunching it was probably not even that good. Thus riders along the corridor have a similar level of service but the agency saves a lot of money which they can use on other (less crowded) corridors.
” there isn’t that much old rail around here and worse yet, we don’t own it.”
I believe there is literally only 1 corridor in region that could be used, which is the Nalley Valley, where Sound Transit does own the ROW and rail used by Amtrack and Sounder. It is plausible that ST could double track that section (IIRC it is single tracked) and leverage for ~1 mile of shared operations between light rail and heavy rail. For example, the T-Link could be extended from Tacoma (downtown and/or Freighthouse Square) to the Mall using this “Nalley Valley” corridor.
Otherwise, good ROW that is publicly owned (e.g. the Eastrail corridor) can be used for bus or rail (or both!).
This is in contrast to cities like LA, Denver, or Dallas where there were long, linear freight corridors that were already set up for rail operations (gated grade crossings, etc) and therefore could be converted to transit in a cost effective way. LA did choose to serve some old freight corridors via BRT: G line, née Orange line, which was the right decision at the time but is running into some peak capacity issues so perhaps will be converted to LRT in the future.
Wish our transit system focused on faster commuter lines and freeway routes that connect very easily with transit. SODO, Stadium, and International District are easy walks in the northbound bus transfer direction – but only Stadium is easy for the southbound direction since there is only one crossing. They should design around smoother transfers and aiming for buses to reach at a correct time to minimize wait time.
I think transfer convenience is generally a minimized or neglected ST consideration. It’s what happens when a bunch of car-oriented leaders make decisions about transit. They focus on bigger connectivity as shown in regional diagrams — yet overlook the fundamentals of station layouts.
The poster child is the station moved to connect with Pioneer Square Station and the Westlake Station. If they ever open, riders will dread the required transfers.
The bus transfers at Judkins Park on 23rd aren’t centered on the JP crosswalk. Rapidride B still skips Wilburton. I’m sure there are many other examples. And where Link stations do have adjacent transit centers, the buses often have to take extra time to leave the street as well as spin around like a ballerina to use the stops.
Disability advocates have attended Board meetings to raise awareness. They are more sensitive to bad transfers, but bad transfers affect all riders. They are just the ones more acutely familiar. Of course, the Board members just nod but don’t respond that they’ll think differently.
An analogy:
A spine with fractured rib connections is a pretty useless spine.
And a spine sawed in half and replaced with bad connection between its two halves is even worse!
Yeah I’m a bit worried for the changes on the 1 Line… And the second tunnel
It looks pretty messed up with the transfer having to be at Westlake. It’s already going to slow trips down to the airport, the UW, etc. which are notoriously slow at the moment for riders trying to get from the South part of the city up into the North part of the city.
I still think we could use a few more projects to top off our regional rail needs in ST4/ST5:
– 1 Line: Federal Way to Northgate using a bypass line skipping Rainier Valley (double tracking is ok), running parallel to the 2 and 3 Lines – increasing Downtown frequency even more
– 5 Line: Tacoma to UW, via Rainier Valley, Judkins Park, and Central District (skipping downtown). Someone brought up this being difficult, but I think exploring a second tunnel merging with the existing one is worth that connectivity.
– 6 Line: Renton to Ballard, via Rainier Valley (parallel to the 5 Line)
– 7 Line: SeaTac to Kirkland via Southcenter, Renton, and Bellevue (with extension to Bothell and Lynnwood planned) – maybe a commuter rail instead of light rail for this one… Though it could run parallel with the 2 and 4 Line in Bellevue if it’s light rail.
– 8 Line: Issaquah to Ballard. Runs parallel with 4 and 2 Lines, but acts as a direct trip option to Seattle while adding extra capacity on the I-90 bridge and Ballard.
– 9 Line – Mukilteo Ferry Link extension
These are options to fund in the subarea equity zones. Though I think Seattle should pay extra to fund a Rapid Ride, subway and light rail network in the city connecting key destinations….and add congestion pricing to kick out the cars.
In addition, increase Link speed limit to 65mph by eliminating old vehicles, and elevate any at grade sections especially Rainier Valley.
I like how ST is going with light rail, as opposed to commuter rail for a few reasons.
Commuter rail can’t really run parallel with light rail. That means you need bulky transfers and you have less chances to travel where you need to in a single ride.
So we can build light rail as commuter rail… But act as light rail within Seattle, and add bypass options as needed. If we upgrade to support 65 mph speeds and improve infrastructure to bring up speed limits to as high as feasible, it’d be more than fast enough.
The lines I suggested above need to interact with the light rail spine. Stride and express bus service can still exist, for a potentially quicker trip in some instances. But the availability of light rail will improve service within a city (not just to random P&Rs and transfer points)… That’s especially useful in downtown Seattle, Bellevue, Redmond… And places like the airport where a bus can get caught in rush traffic.
The system could be really perfect for the region if we had smaller, faster LRVs that were automated and frequent throughout the spine. A missed opportunity… But we can still make use of this current system.
Also ST needs to make everything center platform going forward. Those downtown stations are terrible.
Anyone know why 3rd Ave was chosen as downtown’s transit corridor? Inb4 someone says because DSTT is under 3rd Avenue, why is DSTT chosen to to under 3rd?
Wikipedia says the idea of DSTT under 3rd stems from a 1911 proposal to build rapid transit (if only!) with proposed route 1 going under 3rd avenue.
See history section – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Seattle_Transit_Tunnel
Again, why 3rd Ave and not 4th or 2nd or 1st or 5th etc?
I think it basically evolved that way. They used to have a lot of buses paired with second and fourth. They have added some bus lanes for them. Some of the express buses still go on Fifth. But Third Avenue is closer to the center of the city and it was always two-way. This is better for riders. It is also a better balance in terms of traffic. You are slowing down traffic (by two lanes) both directions. In contrast, if you took over Second or Fourth you would take over four lanes one direction. The only other street that is two-way (and east of the freeway) is First, and that is too far west.
I’ve always assumed it was because 3rd had fewer business entrances and parking garage entrances than other streets, so making 3rd the transit street meant less impact on cars.
Of course, one obvious exception to this is the Seattle Symphony. Which begs the question of whether they lobbied (unsuccessfully) to move the transit street away from them to keep the riffraff away.
Until about 1985, Third Avenue was the busiest commercial street in downtown Seattle. Being a 2-way street, it also had the best transit service–much better than the 2nd/4th couplet and way more desirable than sleazy 1st Avenue. But all of the streets were becoming overcrowded with buses and cars at peak hours and Metro needed a tunnel to relieve overcrowding. Unfortunately, the construction chaos killed nearly every business that fronted 3rd Avenue and 3rd became the least desirable street in downtown. During the construction time, all the trolley routes were moved to 1st Avenue and 1st became a much more active and desirable street while 3rd Avenue crumbled into decay.
The Symphony moved to its present location from the Seattle Center after the tunnel was built, partially so its patrons could use public transit and the bus tunnel to attend concerts. SSO probably regrets that decision today; but at the time, a location in central downtown seemed like a good move.
BINGO! although its not quite as simple as that. Transit “supporters” routinely avoid talking about real world impacts to the economy of a city because “if they use cars they are evil”. 3rd also makes sense because it is mathematically between 2nd and 4th which sort of defines DT. Note, 3rd was supposed to be this pedestrian friendly transit Mall. Doesn’t seem those can both be true.
The downtown pedestrian concentration is between 1st and 6th. That’s where most of the offices and tourist destinations are. 3rd Avenue is right in the middle ofthis and a short walk from both west and east.
In the 1980s before DSTT, most of the Seattle routes were on 3rd Avenue. 2nd/4th Avenues were the suburban expresses. 2nd and 4th are the primary automobile streets between I-90 and Seattle Center. So the DSTT was built where the most walk-on passengers were, the existing Seattle bus routes, and transfers to/from the Seattle bus routes.
Also in the 1970s, homeless people and prostitutes concentrated at 1st & Pike. There were low-cost SRO hotels along 1st and 2nd they lived in as the place of last resort. The city condemned those in the 1970s because they had deteriorated and there were fire-escape issues. The city closed them but provided no replacement, so people who had been renting in them became homeless. Those apartment buildings were torn down and replaced with gentrification. The police dispersed the prostitutes out of downtown, and they spread out along Aurora and Pacific Highway where they’re less visible. Homeless and dodgy people migrated from 1st to 3rd as 1st Avenue gentrified with fancy boutiques and arts.
“3rd was supposed to be this pedestrian friendly transit Mall. Doesn’t seem those can both be true.”
Of course it can, it just needs better design.
Metro is gradually consolidating the bus routes on 3rd with RapidRide conversions, and Link’s expansion is diverting riders. One RapidRide line can carry as many people as a handful of regular routes with fewer buses, because it can utilize capacity more efficiently, and the ultra-frequency attracts riders. A spaghetti of 15- and 30-minute routes leaves more empty seats because people won’t get on one that’s not going to their area, they just missed it and it’s a long wait, they don’t know when it’s scheduled so they won’t go to the bus stop, or it’s slow because the streets don’t have transit-lane improvements or it makes too many turns to serve too many miscellaneous areas.
Most of the potential RapidRide conversions have been implemented since 2012: C, D, E, G, H, and soon the J, and eventually the R. So that step is done, and incremental improvements could be made (e.g., extending the H to SLU). In the 2010s other RapidRide candidates were identified: the 40 and 62 on 3rd. These failed because of Move Seattle’s unrealistic promises and budget limitations. But now Metro plans to upgrade the 36, 40, and 150 in the next two rounds after the R.
So we’re approaching a point were SDOT may be able to shrink the busway from 4 lanes to 2 1/2 lanes as the Downtown Seattle Association wants, and that would give more room for wider sidewalks and pedestrian amenities and a design renovation. That would get closer to a bus-and-walkers’ paradise. Then you just need more destinations in the storefronts, but that’s moistly a separate issue from the buses and rechannelization. You have to get the dodgy people down to a manageable size, and build more shelters/housing to divert them loitering all day on streets, and crack down on the stolen-goods reselling and drug markets.
Just adding on that 3rd was always the logical choice for mass transit. The Forward Thrust proposal used 3rd ave as well just due to its centrality to the CBD.
Back in 1983, when the discussions were hot and heavy about the bus tunnel, I wrote a little pamphlet and put it on the desk of each councilmember before a public meeting that I could not stay to speak at. It advocated boring the tunnel — that had not been publicly discussed previously, though I assume that the consultants were aware of the possibility of doing so but hadn’t publicized it — and running it under Fourth Avenue because of the closeness to the even then rapidly developing “tower center” around Fifth and Marion.
They bored the tunnel but did it under Third. You win some, you lose some; I still think Fourth would have been better. For one thing it would not have had to wriggle under the BNSF tunnel but rather edged alongside it.
Fourth would have been a longer walk from 1st and the waterfront. And it gets steep east-west south of Union. The potential walk-ons and bus transfers are more on 3rd than 4th. 5th & Marion has only the library: the rest is offices and the federal court. The offices are only used by 9-5 office workers in certain professions, and only people with matters before the court and jurors go to the court. You need a street that gets the widest cross-section of the population going to the widest variety of destinations and bus transfers. That’s more on 3rd than 4th, where there’s more retail and services relevant to a wider cross-section of people around the clock. What’s missing is the retail on 3rd south of Pine Street: there was some of it before DSTT, and there could have been more and better ones if the companies had taken advantage of the opportunities.
Those things about Third and Forth south of Union are true, Mike, but they actually favor Fourth, not Third. While, yes, people do ride Link to the Pike Place Market, they are relatively few in number. The parking garages are always full.
You seem to discount office workers, probably since it appears you have not been one yourself. But let me be clear, downtown Seattle would be far worse off without them than it is today. People like to live in and near downtown because it’s a short commute to work. Who do you think can afford those $3,000/month apartments that make Capitol Hill such a nice place? It’s the tecchies at Amazon, the para-legals working south of Stewart and the medical technicians working on First Hill, that’s who.
Without them Capitol Hill would still be a hippie hangout, First Hill would be full of old folks in rent-stabilized apartments and Belltown would be low-rise semi-industrial stuff like it was in 1980.
Sure, the big-shots in the corner offices don’t ride transit to get to work, but the majority of people working in those towers do, and the bulk of the towers are between Fourth and Sixth, not Third and Fifth, though there’s obviously a block of overlap.
You get more downtown coverage by using Third. Remember the original tunnel include Convention Place Station (CPS). Thus you have two stations essentially on Pine before you make a 90-degree turn and follow the waterfront. By following Third you spread things out a bit more. CPS and Westlake are far enough apart. Westlake and Symphony are as well (just barely). If you turned on Fourth, then Westlake and Symphony are really close together. If you were building this from scratch (and never built a CPS) then you could move the Westlake Station to Sixth & Pine. Then a station at University & Fourth would be similar to the pairing that exists today. But with the given stations, Third offered better coverage.
Yes, there are big skyscrapers on Fifth. There are big buildings to the west as well. But if you go east and west you eventually run into limitations. To the east is the freeway — essentially a block of nothingness. To the west you have the waterfront — fish don’t take transit. The core is basically Western to Sixth. Third is right smack dab in the middle.
The primary focus of a subway network should be (1) allowing people to live car-free [the total transit network facilitates all their work and on-trips at all times], and (2) serving the largest cross-section of the population (demographics) to the largest range of destinations (facilitating a higher percent of their trips).
9-5 downtown office workers are one demographic in the overall county/region. Link must serve them because high-capacity rail is the most efficient way to move large crowds traveling at the same time. (The same reason Link must serve stadiums, the airport, and some colleges and malls.) But Link has other responsibilities too. Downtown’s zoning is harmed by the office-only ghetto between Union Street and Yesler Way, with only a few general-interest destinations (library, symphony, art museum). It needs a better mix of housing and retail. That’s not directly related to Link, but it makes Symphony and Pioneer Square stations less of a priority than they’d be in an ideal downtown with more people using them all day for more purposes.
“people do ride Link to the Pike Place Market, they are relatively few in number.”
How do you know? Have you done a survey of how many people at Pike Place Market came by Link?
“The parking garages are always full.”
That just shows one set of clients. It doesn’t show the other sets. I doubt the majority of people at the market parked in the garages. People think P&R riders are the majority of on/offs at Link stations, but they’re only a small fraction. Three-quarters of them couldn’t fit in the garages because they’re full, and one car occupies each space from 7am to 6pm.
“You seem to discount office workers, probably since it appears you have not been one yourself.”
I’ve worked in offices but not downtown. I’ve had three short-term office jobs downtown but that totals only one year, so practically zero. The offices I’ve worked in for thirty years have been at various times in Licton Springs, Ballard, northeast Seattle, and Harborview (if that can be called an “office”). I’d like somewhat to work downtown, but it’s not a priority.
“Who do you think can afford those $3,000/month apartments that make Capitol Hill such a nice place?”
It’s not that expensive. My 1 BR in southwest Capitol Hill is $2050, which I talked down from $2100 or $2200 they’d charge new people. Yes, there’s tons of new buildings that charge this side or that side of $3000, and affluent tekkies who live in them, but again that’s one demographic, not everybody living on Capitol Hill. (SLU, being brand new, with little legacy housing, is an unusual situation.)
“Without them Capitol Hill would still be a hippie hangout,”
You say that as if it”s a bad thing. I’d extend “hippies” to include punks, gays, music fans, and older people who want a walkable urban environment. Capitol Hill was fine before Amazon’s expansion in 2008, and it would still be if a lot of tekkies leave someday.
“First Hill would be full of old folks in rent-stabilized apartments”
That’s a bad thing? Many of the apartments are highrises which use space efficiently and make the neighborhood walkable (and sadly unusual in Seattle or American cities).
“and Belltown would be low-rise semi-industrial stuff like it was in 1980.”
The Belltown highrises have been there my entire life, since I first went there in the 1970s. You must be thinking of the Denny Triangle, which is east of around 6th. The Denny Triangle and SLU were low-rise industrial from their heyday in the early 1900s to their decay after I-5 was built and white flight, to Amazon’s expansion in the 2010s. (Paul Allen started SLU highrises in the 1990s, but it was a smallish number and didn’t extend much into the Denny Triangle.)
RKCNDY, one of the primary punk/grunge clubs in the 1990s and 2000s, was in a low warehouse somewhere in the Denny Triangle, with nothing but parking lots and legacy one-story buildings around it. I don’t remember exactly where it was, north of Stewart Street a block or two maybe; the building has probably been replaced by a highrise.
“Sure, the big-shots in the corner offices don’t ride transit to get to work, but the majority of people working in those towers do, and the bulk of the towers are between Fourth and Sixth, not Third and Fifth, though there’s obviously a block of overlap.”
So office workers walk one more block to 6th at 8am and 5pm Monday-Friday. What matters more is all demographics going to public-facing destinations all day every day. A significant number of those are on 1st and further west.
In an ideal world all downtown areas would have a balanced mix of housing, offices, and retail and other destinations, but it’s a little segregated, so the best corridor is probably in the middle between all of them. That’s 3rd Avenue.
4th is only one block away, so it’s not that big a deal if Link/DSTT were there. It will never be, so it’s an academic question. But I’d rather have Link’s location based on all the downtown activities and users, not just 9-5 office workers.
The cais of dstt1 construction should serve as a cautionary tale about future dstt2 construction.
“Scooby Doo and the Goblin King has a YouTube channel with raw footage of several Metro, Community Transit, and Sound Transit bus models in action on various routes.”
THANK YOU MIKE FOR INCLUDING MY CHANNEL HERE!!! What videos have you even watched on there anyway? I never really expected this but thanks for the gift, it means a lot.
I watched a bit of a couple Community Transit routes and the Crosslake one. I saw from the titles that you label the bus model of each one, so that is something others don’t do. I would feature them more if they showed more scenery or had more information about the bus and route and how passengers use it. As is, I don’t see the point of filming an empty seat for twenty minutes, or just fleeting vague glimpses out the window, or showing the same people seated for minutes on end.
You said something about not wanting to film out the window, but I think that’s what readers would be most interested in: the environment the route operates in, what destinations are there, how many people get on/off at different stops, etc. Readers only know this if they’ve ridden the route or driven through the area, but many people haven’t.
For instance, I’ve only been to Brier a few times. I attended a church in north Lynnwood in the 90s that wanted to build a church in Brier, so I stayed with a family in Mountlake Terrace some weekends and we drove through Brier at various times. There was a Metro route that terminated just south of the border, but Brier didn’t have bus service there was no way for me to get to it except on my bike.
P.S. My main computer broke so I’ll only be online occasionally for the next week or two.
You said you didn’t want to film extensively out the window for some reason, but I think that would be a primary interest of readers. Some of your videos have reflection problems so you can’t see much outside, so you’d have to do something about that. I don’t know how to avoid it but it doesn’t happen in other people’s videos, so there must be a way to avoid the reflections. Maybe it depends on a favorable sun angle and shade.
Does anyone know why on earth Amtrak stops in Tukwila instead of Kent or Auburn? It feels so bafflingly stupid to me to serve a parking lot over a mid size city’s downtown. I feel like I’ve seen vague references to parking or SeaTac or city politiking but any sources would be great
My guess is that Tukwila is more of a “key stop” to Amtrak than Kent, Auburn, Sumner, or Puyallup ever could be to them. A Mukilteo Amtrak stop would also seem appropriate to indirectly address the demand between Anacortes, Deception Pass, Whidbey Island, and Seattle.
Amtrak does this a lot across the country, opting for park and rides over secondary cities downtowns. My guess is that they don’t expect secondary city downtowns to generate the walk/bus ridership needed for a long distance route, whereas park and rides. In my childhood state of New Jersey, Amtrak serves both a secondary city center of New Brunswick (Rutgers Univ, many high rises, densest city between Newark and Trenton) and a park and ride called Metropark. Metropark gets 4x the trains that New Brunswick gets, and gets 10x the ridership. So it stands to reason that the long distance travel market on Amtrak is not quite the same as the local transit market – people are more willing to drive to Amtrak like driving to an airport, whereas secondary city centers with limited parking have a much smaller catchment area.
At the time, there was a local bus that went up the hill from there and also wandered past the SeaTac airport, so someone (maybe the port?) asked the state (which funds the service) to to stop there.
Naturally, the only one seat ride between Amtrak and SeaTac soon became the 574 in Tacoma. The RaidRide to Link connection is a little annoying, but not too bad.
It’d be better if the port, if it really wants an Amtrak connection, would just run one of its dozen or so car rental buses down the hill from time to time.
Or, move the station to Kent and have a different bus service pattern.
Easy access to the 405 corridor.
Early proposals for regional light rail included a light rail line from the airport to Bellevue and the Eastside with a hub at the old Longacres site in Tukwila. Once ST began planning the Sounder South Line, they decided to build a station at Tukwila. With ST managing all the necessary environmental permits, Amtrak decided to build its station at Tukwila, too. Maybe Kent would have been a better location, but Tukwila is what got.
It’s a timely question to ask!
Amtrak avoided stops because of the effort to slow down and speed up after stops. So adding stops led to concerns about slowing down travel times.
The Cascades are getting new Airo locomotives and new passenger cars. Faster acceleration is touted as a benefit as the new locomotives will have hybrid engines and the battery power could give them a boost.
I think a pitch to add a stop for Cascades could reemerge. The findings could shift because of the new locomotives.
Regardless, I think Sounder runs should be referenced on Cascades schedules.
The Airo trains are really heavy, so I don’t think there’s going to be much ability for quick starting and stopping.
Additionally, these will be high floor cars like the Amfleet and Horizon cars, as they were originally designed for the high platform stations on the northeast corridor. So, boarding will be quite a bit slower than it was on the Talgos of 10 years ago.
Ideally, there’d be a mixture of local trains and through trains, with the local trains using something that’s faster boarding.
Ridership trends per station are here: https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/state-transportation-statistics/amtrak-ridership
Surprisingly to me, Tukwila went from ~35K in 2019 to nearly 50K in 2026. For comparison, Everett (40K) and Tacoma (110K) seem to have stagnated during the same 2019-2026 time frame. That’s actually opposite what I would’ve expected, just like you
When did the RailPlus program go into effect? That allowed ORCA pass holders to ride Amtrak for the same cost as Sounder. I wonder if that program caused for Tukwilla-King Station riders to start using Amtrak runs as just another Sounder time slot, boosting ridership.
RailPlus is only for the
North Sounder line where they share station stops. (Mon-Fri)
Since Tukwila only opened on a permanent basis in 2015, I think some of it is probably still attributable to it being a new option for people regionally. But that’s useful context, thanks!
The Tukwila stop was added in the 2000s or 2010s. It seems to be political, like Stanwood station. Some legislators were especially keen on getting those stops. The argument seems to be that Tukwila is suburban but closer to Seattle so more people would use it, and it’s on the border of both Renton and Tukwila so it serves both cities.
The stop should be in Kent or Auburn, which have downtowns and denser housing right in the station area. But the Tukwila area has more political clout, and maybe Renton Boeing (jobs) and Southcenter (biggest shopping center) are factors.
“My guess is that they don’t expect secondary city downtowns to generate the walk/bus ridership needed for a long distance route”
What do they think a rail line is for?!! It’s to serve pedestrian concentrations, and those are downtowns. People can drive to the Kent Station or Auburn Station P&Rs just as easily as middle-of-nowhere P&Rs.
With Metro planning to split the B Line in half due to the 2 Line becoming the game changer to address demand between Bellevue and Redmond, I’ve become inspired and would like to address a similar topic that addresses demand through the city of Lynnwood between the Swift Orange and the Everett Link Extension.
The Swift Orange and the Everett Link Extension are proposed to meet at Lynnwood City Center, West Alderwood (33rd/188th), and Ash Way (mostly the key stops on the Swift Orange). You can also substitute McCollum Park for Mariner (which I would like to see people park at the expanded Mariner Station rather than McCollum Park P&R). McCollum Park works like a tourist destination (like Trailhead Direct) but not necessarily a transfer point. Meanwhile Mariner will be a key destination in the coming years with proposed urban villages (which includes an expanded library by Sno-Isle entitled Mariner Community Campus). Now what to do with these two? Will they get along or be as lousy competitors as Redondo Heights P&R and Star Lake Station?
My goal of this proposal is to prove that all trips that are currently made on the current Swift Orange and it’s neighboring routes will be possible under my proposal via a two seat ride or less.
The Swift Orange is a kooky route which needs some straightening out in order to create a good grid system in South Snohomish County, whereas I hereby propose to split it into two… One Swift Orange (which I’ll dub Orange/112) would start at the McCollum Park P&R (the current eastern terminus) and follow the current, isolated Swift Orange down Hwy 527 through the heart of Mill Creek and turn west onto 164th. The route would continue it’s way down 44th via continuing through 164th and serve a high residential area (as well as the Lynnwood Civic Center). The line would serve Lynnwood City Center (providing a fast connection to the other Swift Orange which I’ll explain via a faster routing through 44th while bypassing 36th and Alderwood Mall for people headed from McCollum Park, Mill Creek, 164th, Ash Way, and Swamp Creek to Lynnwood City Center (which can also be done via Everett Link), Hwy 99, and Edmonds College. The line would return to 44th to make it’s way south down serving a university, business park, shopping center, yet again a lot of residents, a high school, an elementary school, another shopping center, and heading west on 236th to Mountlake Terrace Station (which MLT currently has no Swift line). This line would no doubt get high ridership with the current 112 stats and the variety of destinations served on the line not to mention ridership increases when a bus route is converted into BRT. The “Orange/112” would replace the local 112 and improve connections via a grid.
The second Swift Orange (which I’ll dub the Orange/117) would start at the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal and head south on SR 525 serving a high density area which is the Mukilteo Speedway. The line would then head on Lincoln to Hwy 99 (meeting with the Swift Blue) and parting it’s way from it turning on 148th to 35th (becoming 36th). The line would intersect with the Orange/112 at 36th/164th continuing down the current one Swift Orange. The line would serve Alderwood Mall but instead of heading to Alderwood Mall Blvd would continue south on the proposed Poplar Way Bridge (which had recently started construction) and head towards 196th west to serve the dense 196th area as well as the proposed “District” at 196th/36th which will include new multi-family units, an expanded event center, and new community space. The line would then head on 44th to Lynnwood City Center (meeting with the Orange/112 again) serving proposed TOD around the station and the Northline Village and continuing to Edmonds College (it’s final stop).
My proposed two Swift Orange Lines would be the answer to proposed redevelopment in the vicinity of the heart of Lynnwood and address population growth and the Everett Link Extension. With another Link expansion in Lynnwood we definitely need another BRT line in the vicinity of Lynnwood.
I’d like to know if your trip would still be possible under my proposal via a 2 seat rides or less (includes Everett Link). My proposal adds service to the future Poplar Way Bridge across I-5, increases ridership throughout the core of the system, and who can argue with BRT added to Mountlake Terrace and Mukilteo? Travel times would also be shorter (e.g: McCollum Park, Mill Creek, and 164th to Lynnwood City Center via the Orange/112 and EvLE), and creates new one-seat rides such as Mountlake Terrace to Mill Creek and restores the one-seat connection from Mukilteo to Edmonds College. This would transform South Snohomish County into a grid network and would be the course dish to the local routes which would also see changes to straighten out the system.
I’m not as familiar with transit in Lynnwood and Everett, so I’ll let others comment on your proposal. If you would be interested in writing an article with a restructure proposal for Page 2, send us a note at: contact@seattletransitblog.com.
Ok, thanks.
Scooby Doo if you can mock up the proposed routes on google maps, that’s helpful to follow along what your are proposing. If you write a Page 2, a simple screenshot of Maps with the propose route(s) is super helpful.
Yes, it would be nice to have an article on this, where you’d have more room to develop the concept, and maybe provide maps. (Ross can give advice on map making.)
My concern is frequent service between Ash Way P&R and Lynnwood station. My friend in north Lynnwood has a 3-seat ride to Seattle:
1. 20-minute walk to CT 119. (Or 40-minute walk to Ash Way P&R if the 119 isn’t coming soon.)
2, CT 119 from Jefferson Way area to Ash Way P&R.
3 Swift Orange, CT 201/202, or ST 512 from Ash Way P&R to Lynnwood station.
4. Link from Lynnwood station to Roosevelt, U-District, or Capitol Hill.
She loves the entire Swift Orange ever since it opened. (I wrote an article about it titled “The Future is Orange”, about our first ride on it.) She takes it to Alderwood Mall, downtown Lynnwood, and the Orange/Blue transfer point near Edmonds College. She takes the Orange to the Blue and then north a station to a bookstore she frequents. So she’d probably be disappointed if the Orange were split.
If CT 119 were extended to Lynnwood City Center station, it would help all her trips a lot and avoid a 3-seat ride. And I wish the 119 would become more frequent: at least increase the 60-minute periods to 30 minutes, and extend the span later in the evening.
I don’t understand why the Orange goes on a single-family north-south arterial between 164th and Alderwood Mall. It seems like there could be a higher-volume alternative. It seems to be to serve Swamp Creek P&R. I’m not sure if it’s really necessary for the Orange to serve that. Ash Way P&R is on the Orange, so who needs Swamp Creek P&R on it. Is it because CT can’t afford another regular route for Swamp Creek P&R? That may be penny-wise-but-pound-foolish, like how RapidRide F detours to Tukwila Sounder station even though 95% of the F runs there’s no Sounder train there, and it adds considerably to Renton-Southcenter and Renton-TIB travel times.
If you want to pursue an article, email the contact address (contact at seattletransitblog com).
https://www.communitytransit.org/docs/default-source/swift-expansion/swift-network-fact-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=f92616b1_4
Here is information on the future of the Swift system.
This map gives me the impression the future Swift line after Gold will eventually break current Swift Green into two lines, one going from Seaway to Bothell via SR 526/527 and another one going from Cathcart to Seaway via 128th/132nd.
“This map gives me the impression the future Swift line after Gold will eventually break current Swift Green into two lines, one going from Seaway to Bothell via SR 526/527 and another one going from Cathcart to Seaway via 128th/132nd.”
From what I’ve heard, CT is planning a line from Seaway TC to Cathcart P&R via 19th Ave and 132nd St. I would sure like to see what you just said but idk if CT wants to do that, it would create a grid-style network and the only thing left to make into a grid would be the Swift Orange (which I turn into a grid by splitting it). But I can’t mention how much I want Swift Green from Seaway to Bothell along 19th and Swift Silver from Seaway to Cathcart along Airport…
It’s something that really needs to be done, you also avoid the awkward intersection at 16th and Hwy 527 and cover a gap… I can also imagine the awkwardness of turning a bus onto Hwy 527 from 132nd!
“From what I’ve heard, CT is planning a line from Seaway TC to Cathcart P&R via 19th Ave and 132nd St.”
It doesn’t matter how the line will go now. For now it is all about planning and construction cost. So how the line will be operated won’t affect the construction cost.
Eventually when CT had the funding and starts thinking about operation, they will probably think about breaking Swift Green because if they make that future Swift Line its own thing, it will miss Swift Green by 500-ft at 132nd & SR 527 intersection. That’s feels like a missed opportunity for transfer.
Every Redmond-bound train leaving downtown Seattle between 8:30-9:00am seems to be behind schedule. The one I boarded was tailing a on-time 1 Line train very closely.
Why not just use this approach for WS-Ballard link? In some stretches, literally the only thing that needs to happen is trolley wire.
ST would need to build 4 things:
1. Elevated roadway along 5th Ave & Westlake; this can look exactly like the Mex City BRT in this video
2. Some BRT infrastructure on the WS bridge & 99 … the stuff that Ross has been advocating for years to do immediately.
3. Convert 15th Ave NW to center lane BRT in interbay, including rebuilding the Dravus bridge for a station
4. A new bridge over the Ship Canal (ideally, a car/bike/ped drawbridge at 14th and a 2-lane high bridge at 15th for buses)
And then any North King money left over at the end of ST3 (2040s) can sit in a placeholder fund for a longer term replacement of the WS high bridge
And then instead of running a “new” line, I’d move the D, E, C, and H all to this new elevated corridor, plus a few of the peak express routes (5X, etc., because this BRT infrastructure is “open”).
The beauty of BRT is it can have a few “missing links” for massive capital savings with minimal operations impact. For example, the elevated alignment can make a sharp 90 turn at Thomas and Westlake to run elevated across the Seattle Center and down the hill to dump into 15th Ave … but the RR C & E can exit the elevated guideway before the turn, with the E heading straight onto the 99 freeway while the C would serve a few local stops in SLU and end exactly as it currently does in Eastlake.
What you describe is a NEPA nightmare. It will take 50 years to get building of this kind of structure environmentally clear.
NEPA would add delay. However it simply would require adding and analyzing a new alternative. All the corridor background analysis work on possible impacts has already been done and published or soon to be published for West Seattle, Ballard, Tacoma Dome and Everett corridors. I would think it would only delay things a year or two (not 50).
Of course, claiming NEPA delay is a way (or “excuse”) to keep new alternatives off the table.
Building elevated guideway bridge through multiple small urban core streets is pretty impactful. I can assure you 1 year or two is not enough. One year is just enough for Sound Transit to bring this up in board meeting and award a contract to study it.
To clarify, the part I found inrealistic is 1. Elevated roadway along 5th Ave & Westlake
I have no objection on the others. I especially agree what you suggest for 15th. I think that’s a good idea. Ballard Bridge will never see its day with 3 general-purpose lanes per direction, so Dravus underpass sure doesn’t need three lanes per direction.
I just don’t see how you can cheap build an elevated guideway through Downtown Seattle. Chicago “L” that kind of structure will never be approved today.
Also these still don’t seem to mitigate D Line’s issue through Lower Queen Anne.
Building full grade separated BRT always has its story behind. I don’t know what’s the story behind Mexico City one. They seem to have plan to convert it into light rail in the future (just like LA Metro G Line).
There are actually two systems like this in China and one in Lahore Pakistan. The first one in China was built because back then the city (Xiamen) couldn’t get approved for Metro system because the city was considered too small. So they built a Metro style BRT to work around the approval. The second one (in Chengdu) was really a cheap bullt because it is like Stride which shares bridge structure with elevated expressway. Pakistan cities share similar story as many Latin American countries, very high transit demand but difficult to build rail there. So both Lahore and Islamabad have Latin American style monstrous BRT systrms.
“I just don’t see how you can cheap build an elevated guideway through Downtown Seattle. ”
The Downtown Miami Peoplemover splits into two one-way tracks to negotiate above a few narrow Downtown streets.
If designed well, it just appears like an overhead canopy over the sidewalk. At most, it may be that a tenant may want frosted windows to keep riders from peering in. That’s a significantly more modest cost compared to deep bored subways.
A corner where it turns is here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HVJTkHpUtPYnxGC18
Note too that Detroit’s Downtown Peoplemover is a full one-way loop above Downtown streets.
Why would the footprint be any larger than the monorail? It should require taking no more than 1 lane. The political will can be there when politicians realize it is billions cheaper and decades faster.
Also, the guideway need not be elevated along the whole corridor. Perhaps Pioneer Square proves too difficult to run elevated because the ROW gets tight and the streets are all sitting on fill (or literally elevated). Then the elevated guideway could have a station at Spring/Madison and then ramp down to street level at Columbia. Buses heading to West Seattle simply turn down to Alaska Way (exactly as the C & H do today), whereas other routes could loops around PS and return north (D, E).
North of Columbia, I really don’t see how any of the downtown Avenues could not give up a full lane. Seattle’s CBD has wide streets.
What you describe is a NEPA nightmare. It will take 50 years to get building of this kind of structure environmentally clear.
It is the opposite. The NEPA and state related regulatory work would be nothing special. If anything you avoid a lot of the sensitive areas (like the Duwamish) because you don’t have to do anything there. Of course it requires brand new work, but that is not what is holding up the project. The environmental regulations don’t really matter at this point. We could spend the next ten years doing the environmental assessment over and over again and it wouldn’t delay the project. We simply don’t have enough money to do the work. But AJ’s proposal would be much smaller and thus be built much sooner. It would also be much more iterative. You could run the buses through downtown well before you built a busway there.
I just don’t see how you can cheap build an elevated guideway through Downtown Seattle
It wouldn’t be cheap per mile. But the advantage is, you don’t have many miles. You aren’t build a brand new line from Ballard to West Seattle (most of which is elevated and underground). You are just building tiny pieces here and there. Consider the sections:
1) New Ballard Bridge — Expensive, but has to be built at some point. This really isn’t needed right away as long as you are willing to take a lane or widen the approaches.
2) Convert 15th/Elliot to center running. Not that expensive.
3) Elevated structure from Elliot/Mercer to the Sodo Busway. This would be quite expensive but no more expensive that just this part of Ballard Link.
4) Connect the SoDo Busway to Spokane Street Viaduct. Not that expensive.
Overall this would be much cheaper than the full West Seattle/Ballard built out. It would be in the same ballpark as any of the scaled down options. It would also be way more useful. Riders in West Seattle wouldn’t have to transfer. You have really good headways between downtown and Uptown. Riders from the north end retain their one-seat ride to SeaTac. Riders from Rainier Valley still have their quick ride to Capitol Hill and the UW. It would be cheaper and better. But no, it won’t be seriously considered. We would rather build stub lines from SoDo to Youngstown.
It should require taking no more than 1 lane.
Agreed. You can see this with SkyTrain. The pillars are not that wide — about the width of a car. This is for two train tracks. As the video pointed out, a busway is actually a bit lighter and thus the pillars can be even smaller. It is more an issue with the tracks themselves (if they are four stories up, there are buildings on both sides). You’ve got to work your way around various tall buildings. I’m not saying it can’t be done but it wouldn’t be trivial.
For what it’s worth, the SoDo Busway is actually Fifth Avenue South, so it would line up just fine down there. But there are a lot of ramps to go over and under (between the stadiums). You would have to go over the Yesler Bridge (over 5th) — so that adds to the expense. There is a slight turn there but I don’t think it would be that hard to make that. Once you get north of there you would actually be getting closer to the surface (which makes it cheaper). Fifth looks a little narrow (a few stories up) but it might work out just fine. Westlake is even wider. The turn on Harrison looks relatively easy. That’s because the building on the corner is short. So if you have to make a tight turn you buy up the air rights and go over it. Harrison is nice and wide so it is OK until you get to the Seattle Center. If you planned on going through the center it makes more sense to turn on Thomas instead of Harrison. But at this point I would probably just go underground. I would dogleg to Republican (underground) with the same proposed station there. I would probably just keep going on Republican and go from underground to above ground between 3rd and Elliott. The slope of the hill works in your favor and it is a dead end there (so construction impacts are minimal). At that point you have an elevated line over Elliott. This doesn’t continue for long. North of Mercer Place you can just run on the surface (similar to how the trains go from elevated to surface south of Rainier Beach). But unlike Rainier Valley, there aren’t that many cross streets. It is a lot cheaper to build overpasses and just require drivers to use them then it would be to extend an elevated busway. Dravus and Nickerson already function that way. It wouldn’t take much to have the Magnolia Bridge/Galer overpasses work the same way. Once that is done, you can get rid of left turns. Someone who enters the roadway at say, Gilman would have to go north or south and then turn around if they want to take a left. South of the Mercer you would have the center turn lane again (since the bus would not be on the surface through there). So you just add places for cars and trucks to make a U-Turn.
AI,
Both Detroit People Mover and Miami Metromover are guideway transportation that doesn’t require sterling wheel. So their guideways requires no buffer and no barrier. Are you suggesting we built something like this for bus?
In the case of Miami Metromover, the APM vehicle is almost as wide as the elevated structure. When you build a busway, you will need at least 10-ft lane and some shoulder and barrier. Otherwise, no one would be up to drive that bridge.
It is possible that the pillar foundation only takes up 6-10 ft of surface street, you still will need a 20-ft wide bridge deck to carry the travel lanes if that’s two way. That bridge deck could be just 10 ft from someone’s apartment window or block some residential building’s natural light completely.
“It is possible that the pillar foundation only takes up 6-10 ft of surface street, you still will need a 20-ft wide bridge deck to carry the travel lanes if that’s two way.”
HZ, you summarily ignored my main point. My main point is that it’s possible to split the structures so that there are two one-way structures rather than one two-way structure — and that’s been done elsewhere in the US.
Whether it’s a rubber tired people mover train, a light rail train or just a guided bus affects the ultimate width — but even then, one-way structures with any technology are going to be narrower.
“That bridge deck could be just 10 ft from someone’s apartment window or block some residential building’s natural light completely.” And society should care … why? I lived 1 block from the Chicago L. You know what was right next to the L? More apartments. Does no one live in Belltown next to the monorail?
RE: Seattle Center, I wouldn’t go underground east/west because the 99 tunnel causes a perpendicular route to dive deep, which is why the ST3 stations are no good.
I think it’s a reasonable alternative to put in the table.
Note too that buses can handle steeper slopes than rail can. That reduces the effort to replace the Ship Canal crossing and do other things.
There are bus or rubber tire technologies out there that ST has not considered that could be useful. These include double-articulated buses, guided buses, rubber-tired trains and perhaps driverless “follower buses” to create a virtual train behind a driven, leading bus. Except for the last one, these are not as “gadgetbahn” as RapidRide G buses are and have been widely used around the world for at least 20 years.
The bigger challenge is however political. People across the region will say that they were “promised a train” in ST3! Stakeholders and elected officials in every corridor are already lining up to get what they feel they were promised — even if most will never or rarely use what’s built (sonewhat because of many suboptimal station locations within the corridors) . Resetting the expectations politically would need to come first. I don’t think ST has the energy or willpower to do that this year. Hence, that’s why I first suggest that ST add and analyze options with more affordable technologies with a rail rather than pivoting to a rubber tire strategy.
The origins of this problem were mostly understood pretty quickly after ST3 passage through early WSBLE planning and cost estimating seven or eight years ago. The Board has been in denial about the looming ST3 shortfall for a long time — and yet they now seem intent to force a decision to resolve it within the next two months. To me, that means that they will merely pursue “phasing” rather than revisiting any technology. They’re still stubbornly wedded to the archaic light rail technology from the 1990’s.
Light rail isn’t archaic, it’s just not being applied correctly. If WSBLE was proposed to terminate at-grade in the Junction and in Ballard, running along 15th Ave (both in Interbay & Ballard) just like it does in the Rainier Valley, it would be an appropriate use of the mode. The stupidity is using Link but building an alignment that requires complete grade separation.
The rubber tire is important because it allows for an elevated line that can handle the grade changes in LQA and Pioneer Square. If it needs to be called a “train” for political reasons, OK cool then do that. We call the Tacoma Streetcar a “train” and no one cares that’s it’s a 1 vehicle train.
I’ve sometimes made the pitch here for rubber-tire trains, AJ. Others here just don’t see their applicability or cost savings. For example, it would involve much less engineering and cost to put a rubber tired train on 520 than a train with steel wheels. It could be possible to make West Seattle Link a rubber tired train with an eye to reconfiguring the existing bridge (which cannot accommodate steel wheeled trains but probably could accommodate rubber tired trains) — and running it up the SODO busway and then continuing as a one-way pair above two Downtown Seattle streets.
ST will not even put the effort in to study them. The hit piece on a West Seattle gondola is the only technology discussion I’ve seen for WSBLE. Even the Ballard stub report a few months ago was predicated on using existing Link technology and profiles.
ST3 froze the technology, the corridors and the vertical profiles — and now ST is woefully lacking the funds to build that system on the 2016 referendum map. The only major solutions being floated are postponement phasing. It’s been that way since 2018.
So we within STB discuss and speculate if elements could be “unfrozen”. The thing is that there’s still no advocacy on the Board to consider unfreezing the assumptions to analyze basic cost-cutting ideas like a surface alignment on SE Alaska Street or 15th Ave NW.
The ST3 shortfall was first pitched as a mere cash flow problem (with postponement as the solution) in 2021 with “Realignment”. Observers at the time have long seen that it’s much bigger than a cash flow problem —yet the politics has still not caught up. The Board still seems to cling to phasing and postponement (with some value-engineering tweaking) as the only ways forward.
And the next elephant in the room is the Link farebox recovery if more big ST3 extensions open outside of Seattle. Future ST boards are going to have to deal with new miles of train tracks in ST3 with low ridership for much of the day. ST in 2040 may look quite bleak. The same trains crowded within Seattle will be mostly empty for the last 30 minutes of their trip at each end. Not only is there a capital shortfall, there may be an operating shortfall too — and that would be magnified by short-changing Link to Ballard because that project is where most of the future ST3 ridership comes from. That’s a whole other needed discussion — and my comment is already too long!
Future ST boards are going to have to deal with new miles of train tracks in ST3 with low ridership for much of the day. ST in 2040 may look quite bleak. The same trains crowded within Seattle will be mostly empty for the last 30 minutes of their trip at each end. Not only is there a capital shortfall, there may be an operating shortfall too…
Agreed. I remember someone point this out. They were a skeptic of ST3 before the vote. They pointed out that ridership per mile was expected to go down. Down?!! Since when do you add a major expansion and see ridership-per-mile go down? It should be the opposite. That is what the network effect should give you. Going from 10 stations to 15 means going from 45 trip pairs to 105. That is a lot more potential trips. This should more than make up for the extra track distance. Yet it doesn’t. The tails are so weak — and the combinations so rare — that you have less ridership per mile. This means less money per mile of track or station you have to maintain. It means less money per hour of service.
Oh, and this is pretty common in the US. Agencies will often just run trains to the outskirts less often. But even then it causes all sorts of problems that just wouldn’t exist if they had done it differently. American systems often expand too far, while being fairly weak in the core. I would call it “Metro Implosion”. It usually isn’t fatal, but it causes all sorts of problems, even in fundamentally strong urban areas with extremely strong sections; BART is a great example of that.
Light rail isn’t archaic, it’s just not being applied correctly.
Agreed. Like all modes, it has its place. But I would say that it is rarely the right choice in the United States, yet it is extremely popular here. By its very nature, it is difficult to automate. So you have a few bucks by running on the surface in an area with cross streets. Great. But most of the time this ends up being a poor choice. You are reducing speeds in the middle or the line, not the outskirts. This is backwards.
In contrast it is fairly common in Europe to have big gaps between suburban towns. The trains run underground in the city. They run (grade-separated) out to the suburban town. Then they run on the surface through the suburb. Inside the city it is basically just a metro. Outside it is light rail, but fast enough to (and through) the suburban towns to be worth it.
It is worth noting that heavy rail routinely runs on the surface. It is still grade separated. That should be the case in Interbay. If you assume grade separation between Mercer and the bridge you have a couple choices:
1) Run on the surface and force all the cars to go up and over.
2) Elevate the railway.
The first option is much cheaper. Thus it really isn’t about mode. It could be heavy rail (or basically light metro) and still spend miles on the surface. This would cut costs while still allowing shorter, more reliable travel times and automation (i. e. grade-separation).
The beauty of BRT is it can have a few “missing links” for massive capital savings with minimal operations impact.
Yes, absolutely. I was thinking that the other day. It is one of the main advantages to bus infrastructure. It can be far more iterative. In contrast, rail typically requires a huge investment before it is worth it. A metro line that is one mile long is not very useful. But a one-mile busway can make a huge difference as long as the buses continue on either end. Obviously there are examples of the opposite. Commuter rail is typically built off of old railways. This can be very iterative. It can also include additional infrastructure. Sometimes a small railway (or overpasses, etc.) can be fairly cheap because they take advantage of other rail lines (the London overground expansions come to mind). But buses usually have a lot more existing infrastructure they can leverage (especially in the US) and West Seattle to Ballard is a great example.
That was the idea behind this: https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/02/18/westside-seattle-transit-tunnel/. That was a obviously a tunnel but it would be the same idea with an elevated structure. Elevated is similar to cut and cover in that it tends to be much cheaper but you are generally limited to following the street grid. For example, I would cut over to First Hill with that tunnel. This was actually discussed (behind the scenes) and everyone agreed it would be much better. We just decided to follow the current (flawed) plans as much as possible with this proposal. In any event there are a few turns as you go north but it does seem possible.
Oh man, I totally forgot about the WSTT. Yes, I essentially recreated the same idea, but elevated and more trying to follow the ST3 alignment.
My main axe to grind is Seattle needs to be open to elevated guideways. The street grid is good (we have avenues that are long, straight, and wide) and we have an existing elevated guideway that is literally a tourist attraction.
Yes. This gets to Al’s point. The biggest problems are not technical, they are political. To be clear, there are big technical issues with the ST3 proposal. That’s the problem. They didn’t know about those issues when they approved the plans. But alternatives that are a much better value are not being considered. That part is political. As Al pointed out, people were promised trains and they forget that when done right, buses can offer something better (depending on the use case). The same thing is true with elevated. The monorail proposal was quite popular until they screwed up the financing. But as a result, folks assume that elevated leads to more snafus. Never mind the monorail — our nearest neighbor has done quite well with elevated structures.
It is basically a lack of political leadership. No one is seriously considering real alternatives. They are either arguing for major cutbacks — that pretty much ruin the whole point of the project — or they are asking that we build something that is way too expensive (and wasn’t that great in the first place).
That is the saddest part. Imagine for a second that somehow, someway we build out ST3 as planned. So what? Most of the city is in the same boat as they are now. They are highly dependent on the buses. If they continue to run infrequently and are stuck in traffic, transit will continue to be poor. We will have spent more money per capita on transit than anywhere else in the world and the projects will be largely irrelevant. The most important thing in this city is how well the buses run — just like it is today.
“That is the saddest part. Imagine for a second that somehow, someway we build out ST3 as planned. So what? Most of the city is in the same boat as they are now. They are highly dependent on the buses.”
This is not entirely true, but it’s mostly true. After we’ve spent tens of billions of dollars building ST3 what do we get? The same or even longer end-to-end transit travel times in many cases. But the Board doesn’t want to talk about this. They cherry pick certain trip pairs that get theoretically better — and even then ST doesn’t want to talk about walking through how deep stations reduced the ultimate travel times. (They seem to only want to talk about trips between platforms rather than destinations.) So it may be faster to go between Alaska Junction and UW station platforms, but not between Morgan Junction and Harborview. And anyone living near the existing 1 Line will have a longer total travel time to most places in or north of Downtown except SLU and Ballard if ST3 is built out as planned (especially due to the circuitous transfers being planned).
The Board doesn’t seem to care much about future riders. The Board is too busy dealing with (or courting) developer A and neighborhood activist B to consider how the projects affect everyday future riders.
And let me also state the obvious: an aerial station is going to generally be closer to the sidewalk vertically than a bored tunnel station would be — and likely even a cut and cover one. So going with aerial segments would reduce times in stations and make transit trips faster.
Generally, ST3 system and stations would become almost financially attainable if no tunnels were built. It’s hard to say because no studies were done after ST3 adoption to see if they could be moved from underground. We actually got the exact opposite in West Seattle and Ship Canal (with Ballard station) where the initial aerial alignment was summarily shifted to putting more track underground.
Shout out to Mike Orr for including my channel:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SZKOdoVMkUo
Today’s journey:
4:57 Bellevue DT (door close)
5:00 East Main
5:03 South Bellevue
5:08 Mercer Island
5:14 Judkins Park
5:18 Chinatown
Lucky me my train didn’t significantly slow down before merging into DSTT.
I was on a 2-car train. My car was fully seated with about 15 people standing across Lake Washington.
Still experience hunting in the morning but not much in the afternoon on westbound.
Also notice that almost every train scratched track loudly when running through the curve between Wilburton and Bellevue.
Now that we’re past the second week of operation, do you get the feeling that most of your fellow riders are riding it for transportation, and not to check out the new line?
I’ve sensed a difference. There are still a few just joy riding but that’s always going to be the case. What I’m waiting for is the increase of regular commuters. I’m still talking to people at work that don’t understand how the 1-2 line works and when they would need to transfer. And as time moves forward people will move to transit that wouldn’t if it was fly by night bus service. East Link was so late many people that moved expecting to use it have moved again or changed jobs. So, just a decade late and a couple billion dollars short East Link is doing well.
6 years is not a decade, and very few people move in expectation of a new transit line.
And as time moves forward people will move to transit that wouldn’t if it was fly by night bus service.
Ridership across the lake peaked at about 35,000 riders. This included a lot of people from Eastgate and Issaquah. A lot of those people may actually do the opposite and reject Link because it requires a transfer. Or the feeder buses will be good enough that the transfer is fine. Ultimately what matters is the quality of the service, not the mode. If it works for people they will use it. If it doesn’t, they won’t.
very few people move in expectation of a new transit line.
I could see how people would do this. For example a couple might move to an apartment in the Spring District if one of them works in Seattle and the other at Microsoft. Obviously the full East Link line is a big improvement but the East Link Starter Line made the most difference. Prior to that you would take an infrequent bus followed by a slog on Bellevue Way before the 550 even reached the freeway.
I think in general the starter line had a bigger impact where people want to live. Mercer Island was always a major transit hub. Same with Downtown Bellevue. South Bellevue has had an express bus to Seattle for years. As you get to the areas east of 405 the starter line part of the project adds the most value. Obviously it is much better to just stay on the train and get right into downtown. But the biggest improvement was just getting to that transfer point. I can think of two exceptions. The hotels close to East Main Station are likely a lot more popular now. It wouldn’t surprise if they raised their prices. Judkins Park always worked well for getting to Downtown Bellevue but now it works well for Microsoft (and other Redmond offices).
You will only see commuter for the morning. I bet there is zero folks going on a joyride on chilling Monday morning when I go to work.
Afternoon can be hard to tell. It could be mixed of recreational and commute trip especially when there is a Mariner game.
I have Eastside friends who are giddy about the ability to ride the 2 Line for trips that aren’t commuting. They already “checked out” the line. They see all the places that Link goes that their express bus has not. They fear transferring buses in Downtown and miss the perceived safety of the tunnel stations when Eastside buses were in the DSTT. They say they’ll use Link more than they used buses.
The question remains if Eastside residents will try it a few times and go back to driving or if they’ll just not make the trips, or if 2 Line will inspire them to visit Seattle more and ride Link. They say things like there are performances or events that they’ve skipped or driven to because of access difficulty are now much easier.
It’s like having a new restaurant. People will try it and then return a few times — but mostly only if they have a good experience. But will it be a regular or an infrequent thing for those people?
Finally, how well ST operates the system through the summer will cast a dye on its long-term success. As people try it, negative experiences matter. Things like dirty cars or stations or elevators, out-of-service escalators or elevators, overcrowded trains, offensive people riding the train and bad messaging can sour these potential riders. By skimping on down escalators, ST has already added a negative task of walking down several dozen stairs to the journey.
“For example a couple might move to an apartment in the Spring District if one of them works in Seattle and the other at Microsoft.”
I did this search a couple years ago and my household commute situation is similar to what you described. I ended up choose Seattle over eastside.
The problem with is apartments in eastside generally has no price advantage because of the demand from high-paying workers there. Most of those apartment complexes are not as convenient as apartments in Seattle or even Mercer Island. You can find apartments in Mercer Island with better price than you can find in Spring District and Overlake and Mercer Island is really in the middle of Seattle and eastside. Spring District is one stop away from Wholefoods but that’s it. Most of those large apartment complexes similar to Spring District don’t have extensive retail built with them.
The only exception is Totem Lake, which was in my radar but it is not that easy to go to Seattle from there.
Microsoft and other bigger tech companies have good shuttle system to serve their eastside campus, so under the circumstance you describe, it is more likely household would choose a location closer to Seattle to rent.
They ought to figure out a way to quicken up SBS to IDS section. There seems to be a good amount of slack built into this section’s schedule slowing down the Bellevue/Redmond to Seattle by 5 ish minutes. That may be intentional as they figure out the interlining with 1 line.
“The problem with is apartments in eastside generally has no price advantage because of the demand from high-paying workers there.”
That’s true in other places too, like the Bay Area and Southern California.
It often comes down to worksite travel and lifestyle. It’s dependent on age and mobility and family status too — and those change over time.
I think one big shift is how people optimize their time spent commuting. Smart phones and laptops have changed the perception and effort of commuting in the past 20 years. I sometimes chat with people under 35 that hate driving and would rather be playing a game or watching video or messaging friends while someone else drives.
Those of us over 55 may not fully realize the shift. We were raised to believe that driving was freedom and recreation, and many still believe this. Consider that this is the age group that had more siblings and were raised in homes with less square footage. Driving was about escape and adventure!
The younger people had a more isolated childhood. Being an only child in the suburbs is a more lonely upbringing. It can leave a person starved for interaction. Online interaction becomes a more important coping mechanism. In this situation, driving restricts access to connectedness that may hunger for. While hands-free is now available for drivers, many prefer to communicate through texting rather than voice.
Finally, the Eastside is also somewhat constrained by developable land. There is not the vacant prairie land or broad coastal plains there. That restriction makes the market work differently on the Eastside.
I was surprised rents in mid Bellevue are higher than in Seattle. My relative had a 1950s 1 BR garden apartment off 124th, and while she was on Section 8, the landlord told the government it was worth $2000 on 2022. That was as much or more as my 2004 unit on Capitol Hill with better amenities and exceptional maintenance. It’s in the Spring District upzone area so that may be partly why they think it’s worth that much. I’m like, the whole point of living in the suburbs is that it costs less to make up for the inconvenience. If it doesn’t cost less, why wouldn’t I live in Seattle? That unit had nothing in walking distance except a convenience store and a small pho restaurant. So my relative had to drive to the supermarket, or when that got difficult to go on her own, have volunteer friends drive her. That’s not a good environment for anyone to live, much less aging in place.
I’m like, the whole point of living in the suburbs is that it costs less to make up for the inconvenience. If it doesn’t cost less, why wouldn’t I live in Seattle?
I think a lot of people work on the East Side, have friends on the East Side and want to avoid commuting from Seattle. So there is demand on both sides. My guess is Seattle — with a more liberal zoning code — has been able to keep up with demand while the East Side has not. It is all relative. Both places have grown quite a bit. Both places heavily restrict development. But I’m guessing Seattle has allowed more.
I am curious which direction has more passenger in the morning since light rail opened.
Historically there are more people commuting westbound in the morning according to how 550 trips are scheduled.
Not sure if that’s still the trend. Since several tech companies shrink their footprint in Seattle, the demand on both directions might be more balanced now.
It is hard to tell for sure but my understanding is that the traditional commute still has more people than the reverse commute. But from a transit standpoint, I think East Link adds more for the reverse commuters. Before the pandemic there were about a dozen buses that went from the East Side to Seattle (only during peak). These served a wide area and includes some very large park and ride lots (e. g. Eastgate). In contrast, there were very few reverse-peak only routes. Riders from the East Side headed to Seattle would often go through downtown and then transfer. They will continue to do so, but switch from a bus to a train. For example someone in Issaquah working on First Hill is in the same boat they would have been ten years ago, except now they have an extra step. They used to drive somewhere, catch a bus to Seattle, then catch the bus (or the streetcar) up the hill. Now they drive somewhere, catch a bus to Mercer Island, catch the train, catch a bus up the hill. In contrast someone in Seattle not only has a lot more direct connections but they have more stations to leverage. I would also guess that a lot more people commute from Capitol Hill to the East Side then the reverse.
Then again, Metro is still running some of those buses across the lake. When they stop running the 212 and 218 those riders will switch to taking Link. Thus it may be that the biggest transition from driving to transit occurs with reverse-commuters but most riders on the train still make a traditional commute.
ORCA released some info on tap to pay usage. It looks like usage is trending up. It’s probably impossible to disentangle from the 2 Line opening, but I suspect that tap to pay will have a small positive effect on ridership. I’ve had a surprising number of people tell me they never ride the bus because they don’t want to keep track of an ORCA card.
https://info.myorca.com/wp-content/uploads/2026-04-14-Tap-to-Pay-Usage-Update.pdf
Yeah, it’s going to be basically impossible to disentangle any ridership boost from the enablement of open payments. I expect any effect on ridership to be insignificant, but fare recovery will likely see a slight boost.
>I’ve had a surprising number of people tell me they never ride the bus because they don’t want to keep track of an ORCA card.
People will claim all sorts of reasons they don’t want to take transit. I’d bet a day pass that anyone claiming to be deterred by “keeping track of an ORCA card” really just thinks the bus is uncomfortable or unsafe, but doesn’t want that perception to be challenged.
“People will claim all sorts of reasons they don’t want to take transit.”
There’s certainly some post-hoc rationalization but I don’t think that’s true for most of the people I’ve talked to. My (obviously tiny) sample size skews young, urban, and open to transit. It’s not that the ORCA card was a big blocker, it’s just another small hurdle before taking the bus. They’re just defaulting to what they know.
I have multiple friends and coworkers that live in/around Capitol Hill, drive to work, and walk for most other trips. Most of their trips are not well-served by transit, so they don’t really have a good reason to integrate it into their daily lives. Meaning for more niche cases where a bus ride saves them a longer walk, they might just walk since they don’t have an ORCA card on hand. They seem more than happy to walk to the light rail station and manually buy tickets if they want to take it somewhere (for example to the stadiums or the airport).
Some of my coworkers who never previously took the bus got ORCA cards and now (at least occasionally) take the bus to the 2 Line to the office. Another one lived basically on top of a G Line stop, and eventually got an ORCA card (months after it opened) because he found it convenient to get down to the waterfront.
Yeah, it’s going to be basically impossible to disentangle any ridership boost from the enablement of open payments. I expect any effect on ridership to be insignificant
I agree. If anything, this will lead to an increase in bus ridership, not Link ridership. Every Link station has a kiosk that accepts Visa. If you forgot (or never bothered to get) your ORCA card, you just pay there. Not too complicated. In contrast, bus stops don’t typically have such payment stations. Up until recently, you either had to pay cash or with ORCA. Now you can pay with a credit card. I could see how this would be a game-changer, especially for those from out of town.
That being said, the biggest reason people don’t take the bus is because it takes too long. The quality of the network (whether it is fast, frequent, direct) is likely going to impact their choice a lot more.
I frequently saw nice drivers waved away clueless visitor-looking people trying to pay with iPhone near Pike-Pine in the past. Those people can finally pay now.
102 departures this evening… Somehow worse than last week.
15 minutes late
28 minutes late
23 minutes late
51 minutes late
Not sure what even causes this. Almost every other route out of Seattle is operating within a reasonable level of timeliness. Late due to the rain, but not absurdly late.
So there’s no bus for an hour? I don’t see what how the 101/102 corridor can have uniquely bad bottlenecks. I-5 congestion affects all express routes, and while downtown Renton is congested it’s predictable and no 30-minute delays that I’ve seen. I’d be surprised if other express corridors are less than 10 minutes late because a lot of Seattle routes can barely reach that.
The 102 does seem to be particularly bad. Metro’s ridership dashboard shows 60% on-time percentage for the 102 in the afternoon peak. The 101 shows a middling 74% from Seattle to Renton.
It looks like every 102 vehicle in the evening was deadhead from south base. They typical do a few 150 runs and some South King local runs in the morning. Maybe I-5 northbound gets constantly bad because of Revive I-5 and those deadhead trip always take longer?
Under that circumstance, I think it is probably better to run some kind of 102 shuttle from Renton to connect with additional 101 trips during peak period.