Reminder: TCC is hosting the Sound Transit South King County Town Hall tonight, 6-7:30pm, at Highline College in Des Moines.
Local News:
- Op-Ed: Urging Transit Officials to Join the 2026 Week Without Driving (The Urbanist)
- The free Waterfront Shuttle will start circulating downtown Seattle on May 21 (Metro Matters)
- Sound Transit Board Grapples with Plan to Rebalance ST3 (The Urbanist) while Seattle city leaders call for both WSLE and BLE to be finished on time.
- Tell Sound Transit what you’d like to see at the Tacoma Dome Link Extension’s stations (ST Project Update)
- Bellevue Gets Regional Buy-in for Grand Connection Crossing Plan (The Urbanist)
- Mayor Wilson says the Mayor Says KCRHA’s Initial Response to Audit Findings “Did Not Adequately Address My Concerns” (PubliCola)
- Discord brewing at City Hall as City Council staff complain that the Mayor’s staff is ordering them around (PubliCola)
- The art deco sign bridge over the former Alaskan Way Viaduct now spans Bell Street at Western Ave in Belltown (Seattle Now And Then)
- Roadside Chat with SDOT’s head of construction & mobility discussing the city’s preparation for the FIFA World Cup this summer (SDOT Blog)
- Seattle finally legalized “Shared Streets” where speed limits can be set as low as 10 mph and prioritize pedestrians while still allowing general traffic (Seattle City Council Blog)
Other News:
- E-Bike and scooter injury rates are are falling in Europe and rising in America (StreetsblogUSA)
- Los Angeles opened the first of three phases of its D Line subway extension last week (StreetsblogUSA)
- The NYC City Council and some advocates are pushing for cheaper bus rides instead of the free rides Mayor Mamdani famously campaigned on providing (The New York Times, gift link)
This is an Open Thread.
Anecdotally, the 550 and 554 are still used by a surprising number of people. I see them daily pass me while biking the I90 trail.
Any thoughts on why this? Just matter of people still needing to adjust their behavior? I can understand the 554 providing a convenient and fast connection to eastgate and issaquah,
Not everyone makes train vs bus mode choice for the same reason. For some, stop location may be the deciding factor, not overall trip speed.
The 554 still has no alternative: you have to transfer to it at least by Mercer Island. People may not be fully aware of what Link would offer their trip. They may not see the point in transferring at Mercer Island when they’ll be downtown in ten minutes anyway, whereas if it were a longer distance they’d be more likely to transfer.
Ridership may be asymetric. I’d more likely take Link eastbound to avoid waiting for the 554 and riding on surface streets, and it’s always nicer to postpone waiting/walking to the end of the trip. Westbound I’d take the 554 and wait for it because there’s no other choice, then when I reach Mercer Island, I might stay on the bus. Actually, I would transfer to Link because I’m such a foamer and I’m probably going to Capitol Hill or elsewhere non-downtown, but others might not.
The 550 still goes directly to Bellevue Way. When I took it westbound in the 2020s off peak, half the passengers got on at the Bellevue Square stop. They may continue to do that as long as that’s an option.
Also there’s the question of how many is “many”. A number of people are still on it, but how significant is it from a total ridership perspective? Twenty-five people fill half a bus and look imposing, but are barely noticeable on a train; they’re just the “few standees”.
I think the 550 offers better coverage of downtown Bellevue compared to the station. Having the Bellevue station right by 405 was such a major failure that will be felt for generations. Also the 550 isn’t that much slower than the 2 line. I think the main time loss is from the Mercer Island stop detour.
On a similar note, the 545 is still standing room only. The trip from Redmond is 10-20 minutes faster on the bus, even during peak.
I think we should keep the 550 but update it to remove duplication with Link.
Maybe send it to SLU, and remove the Mercer Island stop.
Similarly keep the 554 but without the Mercer Island stop, and delete the 212/218, and don’t run the 215 to Issaquah Highlands.
Oh and remove the 554 deviation through Yesler.
I also think extending the 550 as an express to S Kirkland / Kirkland could expand access and connections around that area without having to take slow local routes. Until the 4 Line in 2050 that is.
In general we shouldn’t use Link to eliminate bus service. Link is for certain kinds of trips. A bus performs better in others. If we didn’t have an operator shortage I think we should be expanding bus service even with Link
“I think we should keep the 550 but update it to remove duplication with Link.
Maybe send it to SLU, and remove the Mercer Island stop.”
So, is this going to be another 544 situation? Oh great, if King County Metro ever heard this they’d disagree and I do too. SLU is basically the reason why some peak buses aren’t going away (and also First Hill).
Please don’t do this, if the 630 is bad enough being kept then this will be worse. I would even prefer if you sent the 550 via SR 520 but still I wouldn’t agree with that.
“Similarly keep the 554 but without the Mercer Island stop, and delete the 212/218, and don’t run the 215 to Issaquah Highlands.”
Then how are people coming from east going to get to Mercer Island? I don’t think you thought about that, or you’ll just have people use the 203 and then the 2 Line. If you think that combination is good just for the sake of bypassing I-90 traffic it’s not since you have to wander through single family homes and not even be express at all.
Yeah, the 212 is going away but not the 218. The 218 should definitely go away if we’re gonna have another bus on I-90. Though I’d rather have an ST express route to North Bend with King County Metro paying for the segment that’s not in their district.
Do you want the 215 to be Mercer Island to Snoqualmie/North Bend without stopping in Issaquah? It makes sense now that you think about it for the sake of Downtown Seattle commuters. Though how will people get to Issaquah from Snoqualmie/North Bend that are currently on the 208?
You should probably look more into ridership stats and patterns. From what I see, you’re prioritizing speed and one-seat connections but my conclusion is that an I-90 express bus will lose against the 2 Line at peak which is when traffic is at it’s worst.
“Oh and remove the 554 deviation through Yesler.”
The 554 deviation through Yesler only exists to serve the Judkins Park Station area (or at the moment to serve the future Judkins Park Station area).
“I also think extending the 550 as an express to S Kirkland / Kirkland could expand access and connections around that area without having to take slow local routes. Until the 4 Line in 2050 that is.”
Hmm, I guess we’ve been on the same page for an ST express route along Bellevue Way to Kirkland to take advantage of that long road. Another good reason is to prepare for the future 4 Line (which you mentioned). Yeah, I would rather have a full Bellevue Way route rather than multiple routes serving the area.
“In general we shouldn’t use Link to eliminate bus service. Link is for certain kinds of trips. A bus performs better in others. If we didn’t have an operator shortage I think we should be expanding bus service even with Link”
Well, I disagree. In my point of view, Link is for areas with higher density, higher traffic, and overall higher ridership. Bus service is for communities that can’t handle light rail due to land issues, aren’t too dense, or simply just don’t justify ridership for HCT. Buses should really be feeding into light rail to minimize walking, reduce driving, and overall for at least some ridership but not entirely (wherever applies).
Yes, we should expand bus service with light rail because that’s the main point of these projects. We should have automated trains.
It would make an interesting approach to an early ST South Lake Union connection from I-90.
Imagine if thecroute followed I-90 to Edgar Martinez Dr, had an easy transfer to 1 Line at Stadium station (like stopping in between the directional aerial ramps at a deck built right above the bus yard and next to the station platform) and easily connecting to the 99 tunnel and on to stops in SLU and/or at Seattle Center.
A bus deck with freeway access at this location could also serve ST express buses from South King and Pierce. With the SODO busway going away and Ballard Link unfunded, it may be time to look for ways to use the 99 tunnel for express buses.
Maybe even make it a Stride line and add at stop at First Ave S.
“I also think extending the 550 as an express to S Kirkland / Kirkland could expand access and connections around that area without having to take slow local routes.”
Kirkland to Downtown Seattle via SR 520 has a couple better options. I really don’t think 550 can make thing better unless it skips Bellevue completely.
I’m not a 550 or 554 regular rider. I do sometimes pass by one of these buses in the evenings on I-90 though. I can’t speak for other times of day, but the buses I’ve passed in the evenings are generally almost to completely empty.
It depends on time of day how competitive 550 is over light rail. I’d say there is not enough different in the morning, but it makes a lot more difference in travel time in the afternoon, so that’s when the observation makes sense. For those who are actually going to Downtown Bellevue west of 106th Ave NE, they probably will to stick to 550 till last day.
That may be part of the reason I see few riders on Link going into Seattle in the morning (6-9AM) but the train is packed going eastbound in the afternoon (3-6PM).
From Mercer Island, anecdotally it appears to me that 550 ridership has mostly collapsed. This includes me; I haven’t been on the 550 since Link opened. I suspect those still on the 550 are riding due to stop locations, as others have mentioned. The travel time difference isn’t huge during midday, but Link’s frequency is better.
554 ridership seems to be roughly the same, which makes sense; there’s no alternative in place and the 554 is pretty fast.
“ I haven’t been on the 550 since Link opened.”
Same except on one weekday when Link broke down.
My destination is around Bellevue TC, so unlike those who works at Amazon buildings, light rail station is not further away from my destination than 550 stops.
550 either takes same time or worse, so I just don’t think it is worth it.
Note May 11 Urbanist piece on ST3 reset. The second picture shows Chair Somers. The caption notes he wants the Board to approve his balancing package to avoid delays to the WSLE. But why be in a hurry to make bad decisions? Why advance the WSLE when the DSTT2 is awful, BLE is tied to the DSTT2 and not funded. The WSLE plan is to hurry up and build a line that will be a shuttle to/from SODO
whywhile the DSTT2 is constructed? That is hurry and up and wait and quite silly. The WSLE will achieve the 2018 radial route ridership in the horizon year of 2040.The current board was not the board that selected the ST3 projects that won voter approval. Why are they fighting so hard for the stinker projects?
[Ed: correction per commenter]
> But why be in a hurry to make bad decisions?
From the article:
[Somers:] “…the Federal Transit Administration has told us we need a plan, or they’re not processing anything.”
So, FTA says ST needs a balanced long-range financial plan before they will continue any work on ST’s projects. This means they’re holding the BLE DEIS hostage until ST approves the ST3 realignment. I think Somers understands that long-range planning can be changed relatively easily, and structured his ST3 realignment to minimize potential impacts to project planning process, and to placate the FTA into resuming review of BLE and whatever other projects ST needs them to be involved in.
It is clear that the aren’t concerned when projects are completed, only when they are started. This is consistent with the “Build the Damn Trains” movement. It doesn’t matter where or what stations they have. Just build something, somewhere, as soon as possible. The only goal I see is to keep the construction crews working. Transit riders are not a major consideration.
> The only goal I see is to keep the construction crews working.
Yes, that’s the bulk of ST’s budget and budgets are where you see an agency’s real priorities. It’s been a decade since ST decided to prioritize Link projects that are rider-inefficient (like finishing the Spine and building to West Seattle) instead of high ridership-per-dollar proposals. It may be valid to continually call out the inefficiency of it, but it’s hard to see the value of it.
Very similar to the 2001 decision to build Link South-first.
Very similar to the 2001 decision to build Link South-first.
Yes, but worse. Downtown to the UW was so fundamentally strong it felt inevitable. They were going to build it one way or another (and they did). I don’t see that with Ballard. It would not surprise me in the least if trains never get to Ballard. These projects will take a really long time and they are extremely expensive. I see no enthusiasm for any future transit vote. ST4 would fail miserably in the surrounding areas and even in Seattle there could be a protest vote against it (like there was in Vancouver).
ST reached NE 45 th street with ST funds. ST reached downtown Redmond and Federal Way with ST3 funds.
If BLE is tied to the DSTT2, it may never be built. The second tunnel could sink ST3.
Is the FTA funding anything at all right now? I read that they haven’t funded any new projects in over a year.
Funding is one thing. The main problem is ST legally can’t build any public-facing transit projects without a Record of Decision from the FTA regarding potential environmental impacts, and it appears ST can’t proceed with design until the EIS is approved.
Given the radical changes willing to be proposed by this administration, there could be a new Federal requirement emerge that future funding will require inclusion of an automated train scenario.
Not only is Honolulu running an automated train, the Phoenix Skytrain and the LAX soon-to-open connector are also automated rail.
Add to that WMATA just agreed to automate the Red Line in the past month:
https://wjla.com/news/local/metro-red-line-train-automation-vote-driverless-trains-platform-screen-doorswmata-washington-dc-transit-public-transportation-safety-infrastructure-upgrades-commuter-dmv
San Diego Airport is looking towards automation for a new rail connection too:
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2025/11/20/want-vancouver-skytrain-in-san-diego-support-people-mover-to-the-airport
Despite what the Board keeps saying about extensive delays, looking to automation is not a serious delay to the schedule. Even if ST wastes their money and contracts to overbuild West Seattle as planned, they could still look to building the rest of the WSBLE corridor as automated and convert the West Seattle segment as part of that.
Rather than try to stop West Seattle Link completely, the best viable approach is admit that this just won’t happen politically. Let’s push to require an objective study of automation as conceived by the Kubly-Reed concept to the Somers motion and write to FTA to require it for all future rail extensions across the country.
Even though the current Seattle offices of the major civil firms under contract to ST generally don’t seem to have direct experience with automated rail, almost every one of these firms has experience with it elsewhere in their firm.
Al, I think you may be underestimating the difficulty of getting ST to evaluate at-grade automation. You can argue all day long about how diligent computers are and you’ll get the same answer, “The public won’t stand for it. When the first person is killed there will be an uproar you can’t imagine.”
I am 100% for automating elevated and subway lines. Don’t waste ammo trying to get past public resistance on this. Trains cannot stop like rubber-tired vehicles. The friction co-efficients are way too low and the weight way too great.
People do stupid things, and it’s a shame that public entities have to take a “worst-case” stance as a result. But there you are; ST simply won’t approve it.
@ Tom T:
Yes at-grade automation is a challenge.
But that’s the beauty of WSBLE as an automated line (the Kubly-Ross proposal)! Rather than blend with existing lines with at-grade crossings it would be completely grade separated.
Not only is it a *challenge* it’s literally never been done before. It’s 100% not going to be a thing ever, just due to the variability of the at grade environment
“Not only is Honolulu running an automated train, the Phoenix Skytrain and the LAX soon-to-open connector are also automated rail.”
The type of people mover LAX and PHX is getting is basically a people mover on the landside. It is very different from Honolulu Skyline.
There are actually many systems like that in the US serving airport landside connection. In the 1980s, some shopping mall or regional center even has something like that.
The technology is no difference from those on the airside of many airport terminals. It just hasn’t been largely adopted by transit agencies except few locations like Miami. For places using APM for public transportation, they usually function as feeder line. My guess is APM system doesn’t work very well for longer line because it can barely reach top speed US-standard LRV can do. Some can barely run faster than 40 mph, but it is not big deal for airport shuttle because they all have pretty dense station spacing.
@ HZ:
The PHX askyTrwin is about 5 miles long. That’s roughly the distance from Ballard to Westlake and longer than from Alaska a junction to SODO.
@ HZ:
The PHX SkyTrain is about 5 miles long. That’s roughly the distance from Ballard to Westlake and longer than from Alaska Junction to SODO.
Admittedly it has rubber tires. But so do several metros around the world.
Tom, that is a terrible take. Driverless vehicles are safer and a clearly best practice; the wheel mode is irrelevant. The stopping distance is shorter because a computer has a faster reaction time than a human. If anything, the computer will stop “too often” or “too abruptly” relative to a human driver.
Al, so you’re not proposing an automated WSLE as currently envisioned, but rather a (presumably elevated) new alignment between Downtown and SoDo then to West Seattle, to be the southern end of an automated BLE?
I guess that would work, but where would it be located between CID and SoDo? Would it actually connect at SoDo or follow a different path?
Would it follow the DSTT2 alignment or is it an alternative extension for The Snake alignment through First Hill?
I’m not familiar with this “Kubly-Ross” proposal.
This is the Kubly-Reed proposal: https://www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-reconnect-and-automate-ballard-to-west-seattle-rail-to-save-st3/. While some of the claims may be exaggerated, the basic premise is sound. Go back to building West Seattle to Ballard as one line. Design it with automated trains in mind.
Rather than try to stop West Seattle Link completely, the best viable approach is admit that this just won’t happen politically. Let’s push to require an objective study of automation as conceived by the Kubly-Reed concept to the Somers motion and write to FTA to require it for all future rail extensions across the country.
There is a lot to be said for this approach. It reminds me of a comment made a few days ago. I can’t remember who wrote it and there has been a lot written. But the gist of it was this: Saying that Ballard is better than West Seattle is counterproductive. It leads the board to dig in their heals and just continue on the same path. In contrast, supporting automation from West Seattle to Ballard obviously implies support for West Seattle Link. Perhaps the best tact is this:
1) Support the Kubly-Reed plan for automation.
2) Demand that every station be built. We should not repeat the First Hill mistake. Build what the voters approved — that includes Avalon Station.
3) Rethink the order of construction. It doesn’t matter when a project starts, it matters when it finishes and how much value it has when it is done.
This should be the message. It is pretty simple and easy to understand. I have thoughts as to the order of construction but the main message should be that we reconsider it.
I typed Kubly-Ross rather than Kubly-Reed by mistake.
I agree with Ross that even though it’s suboptimal (especially in terms of building a redundant and costly DSTT2), it’s a politically pragmatic strategy that would be cheaper to both build and operate (rather than what Somers wants to adopt).
One big advantage is that it’s “additive” and its construction would not disrupt other Link lines.
Another is that the line’s vertical profile will not be as restrictive, especially at stations. Note that the Shoreline South platform was moved after the FEIS and others were narrowed.
Sadly, the DSTT2 stations in Downtown and SLU would still be ridiculously deep and time-consuming to reach from the surface unless the stations’ vertical profiles are significantly changed. So supporting it should in my mind include a requirement to revisit the vertical profiles of the stations and tracks. Even with that, it may still be too costly to build. We just don’t know because ST has refused to give automated trains an objective, thorough and more strategic look. ST won’t look at it unless ST is somehow forced.
OK, this is a followup comment, based on item 3 above (Rethink the order of construction). I think there are important considerations here. First of all, the delays are not the result of planning. They are the result of cost overruns in construction. Thus it doesn’t matter if a project is “shovel ready”. We are not in a recession. This is not the federal government pumping money into the economy. We should focus on what we can complete as soon as possible, regardless of where we are in the planning process. I believe there should be two main criteria when considering each segment: controversy and value.
Given those criteria, I would say the following:
1) The downtown tunnel stations will continue to be extremely controversial. There are issues surrounding the stations that were never resolved. Transit advocates are arguing strongly for better transfers. Community advocates are arguing against disruption. It is worth noting that people in Ballard are willing to march for a station in their neighborhood. In Chinatown they are willing to march against a new one. Bruce Harrell — a long time politician who is half Asian — could not resolve the conflict. Hard to see Wilson (a relative newcomer) doing any better.
2) Until West Seattle Link is connected to downtown, it adds very little value. Metro will likely leave the West-Seattle-to-downtown buses alone. Metro would most likely alter the 50 to avoid SoDo (making the trip from Beacon Hill to West Seattle significantly faster). But even with that, my guess is less than a thousand riders would benefit from a West Seattle to SoDo line.
3) The section from Interbay to Ballard remains highly controversial. Right now people are fighting for a station — any station — in the greater Ballard area. But there are still plenty of transit advocates pushing for a station to the west. Transit advocates (like me) are also pushing for the line to be designed so that it can eventually curve east, to the U-District. Then you have the rail line itself, from Interbay to Ballard. They still haven’t decided whether to go above or below ground. While delaying the opening of this station is bad, delaying the decisions surround it is not. It is important that we get this right, even if it means we break ground a little bit later. It is possible a long discussion leads to cost savings, which in turn mean we could finish sooner.
4) Assuming we add all the stations, there is very little controversy surrounding the section from Westlake to Interbay. The preferred alternative is fine. I would rather the Denny station be at Terry (not Westlake) but other than that, I like the stations in the preferred alternative more. I think most people would agree — the preferred alternative is OK.
5) Interbay to Westlake adds quite a bit of value. Not as much as Ballard to Westlake but still a lot. This is the section that is the slowest to drive. It is what makes the RapidRide D relatively slow (despite it being “BRT”). Riders from Interbay would be able to get to any of the four stations (Seattle Center, South Lake Union, Denny or Westlake) much sooner. As a result, the transfer to a train (presumably running more frequently than the existing RapidRide D) would be much more attractive. Thus Metro would probably send all the Magnolia buses to SPU/Fremont/UW while running them more often. This would be a huge improvement in transit for Magnolia. It is also highly likely that Metro alters the RapidRide D, sending it on the pathway of the 15. This would make the trip from Ballard to downtown much faster. It would also complement Link quite well, since the D would serve Belltown (while Link does not). Someone from an Aurora bus (from Phinney Ridge, Greenwood, Green Lake or any other place on Aurora) would benefit from the fast connection to Uptown (and the Seattle Center). You still wouldn’t get a huge number of riders from say, Westlake to South Lake Union but you would get some. Shorter trips would especially benefit from the increased frequency of an automated line. Overall it adds up to quite a few riders benefiting.
6) Given all that, I would just start with Interbay to Westlake. West Seattle to Seattle Center might add more value, but it isn’t clear that it does. It would certainly be more expensive and controversial. Thus it would take longer to build and there is greater risk of it being severely flawed.
There is another advantage to starting with this section. It would complement “Real BRT” if we decided we couldn’t fund an extension. This includes Ballard. I could easily see a bus running in the middle of the street, from 15th NW (in Ballard) to Denny. At Denny the bus would move to the curb lane to join the 8. You would need to add center bus stops and crossing lights but overall it wouldn’t be a very large project. You would add a bus stop underneath the Dravus Street overpass. There would be very few traffic lights along the way, almost all of which favor the buses. It is better than Rainier Valley (where Link operates) in terms of cross streets. From a cost perspective, you avoid the most problematic section (Uptown). Eventually the Ballard Bridge needs to be replaced. This could incorporate that idea. The section south of Denny would still be less than ideal but it wouldn’t be that long (and it will all be a transit mall fairly soon).
It also wouldn’t have to be limited to the D. I could easily see an all-day 18 doing the same thing. Thus you would have one bus going on 15th NW and another on 24th; both going to downtown via a fairly fast thoroughfare (with very few traffic lights until Denny).
Just to be clear, we shouldn’t rule out the eventual “Seattle Spine” (from Ballard to West Seattle). But by building the section from Interbay to Westlake we get a major improvement right away while we avoid making any big mistakes. We open the door to further improvements whether it is a station in First Hill or faster buses from West Seattle or Ballard.
“They are the result of cost overruns in construction.”
I’d phrase that differently for a few reasons. First, it’s a result of significantly higher estimated costs rather than cost overruns. Second, the higher estimated costs are more attributable to scope adjustments and costing assumption mistakes in 2016 than it is inflation.
This wordsmithing aside, Ross is exactly right that there is no benefit to rushing West Seattle Link. The cost to the public of operating it for 10 to 20 years with very low ridership could be greater than the cost savings from advancing its construction as a hedge against inflation. And given the huge amount of steel needed for the proposed cable-stayed bridge over the Duwamish, that one aspect of the West Seattle Link extension will govern the project capital cost more than generalized inflation would.
I’m sorry AJ, you’re wrong about this. Wheel adhesion does make a significant difference between rubber-tired and steel rail vehicles. Even when you give automation a leg up on reaction time, unless you use track brakes on a rail car, which risks injuring those standing and occasionally even those seated within it, the crazy stuff people do around railroad tracks will get some of them killed.
And the public will go bonkers if the train was automated. It becomes a huge, heavy, relentless KILLER in the press. ST will never risk its reputation with automated at-grade trains.
Nor should they. Elevated trackway isn’t ruinously expensive, and it doesn’t have to be elevated to eighteen feet of clearance in places like alongside Ballmer Yard. Eight feet is enough to keep all but determined people off, and the public would judge an intruder who climbed an eight foot high structure as intentionally risking his (it would be a “he”) life and not blame ST.
I agree strongly with your Westlake to Interbay write-up. This is the heart of ST3. Everything else is either a distraction (The Scoliomish Flyer, Tiddly-Links, and the Issaville Trolley) or JPBT — “Just Plain Bad Transit” — to West Seattle.
As you point out elegantly, Elliott and 15th West are PDQ streets already, so with a decent intercept terminal station for riders headed Uptown or to SLU around Expedia, buses that don’t have to take the Uptown Jog are very rapid to downtown Seattle.
North King can clearly afford Westlake to Smith Cove, a non-revenue tunnel from Third and Pine to Stewart or Virginia and Westlake for heavy repair moves, and a small “cleaning and electronics only” Maintenance Facility just west of Ballmer. That is a slam-dunk. Especially if the stations are 2/3 sized and shallower because they don’t have to set up the dive to “CIDS-N”.
There would be more than enough left over either to add a bus-only lane to the West Seattle Freeway East to SR99 North cloverleaf or improve the Fourth South eastbound off-ramp with a bus lane there in order to use the busway for West Seattle.
Or both!
New Westlake should be as shallow as possible in order to set it up to continue into First Hill.
Build The Snake!….Eventually
The revised long range financially balanced plan is needed so that the FTA proceeds to evaluate the BLE? Why is approval of the WSLE needed? Could the MOS be SODO station?
The article paints a picture of consensus on the Board. It seems highly unlikely that enough Board members have enough empathy to change anything. The Board has been facing the funding shortage for at least seven years, and should have seen it before the ST3 vote a decade ago as the West Seattle, DSTT2 and Ballard projects were wildly underfunded in the measure when compared to similar projects around the country.
Even if that’s accepted at face value, the Board has still had years to resolve the funding shortfall. Rogoff saw this in the “realignment” effort but the Board did the same thing — delay rather than rethink. They indicated then that they would just extend ST3 taxes further than prepare an ST4. The outcome of the “enterprise initiative” is now becoming conceptually identical to the “realignment” a few years ago but with different numbers.
Is there a “Hail Mary” option left? I’m out of ideas. Just like the CID change made after the DEIS, decisions for Link are made in secret and revealed to the public only when there’s no chance of changing them.
The only thing that I can do is speculate on these future outcomes:
1. WSLE costs will grow significantly again. The cost savings recently announced will be adjusted upward once its construction is assured. No one with clout will point out that the 2026 cost savings was mainly on paper just to give the Board a reason to promise its construction.
2. The SODO busway will close by the end of next year. There will be sudden outrage from Renton and Kent elected officials there like they didn’t know it would happen and impact their constituents. The rerouting will add 5-10 minutes to each trip even with bus lanes on 4th Ave S.
3. WSLE will have a revised opening date of 2036 or 2037. Before the opening, Constantine and Somers will both retire. The Board will honor Constantine by naming the bridge to West Seattle for him unless some unforeseen scandal emerges.
4. DSTT2 will be phased further, and the segment from the County buildings southward will be pushed to open sooner, around 2042. Then 1 Line trains and riders from SE Seattle and South King will get kicked out of the DSTT so that West Seattle can get the direct service through DSTT that it’s badly craving. Everyone will complain about the stupid transfers and the Board will merely shrug like they were forced to accept the circuitous layouts (rather than admit that it was avoidable as recently as 2026, especially at SODO).
5. The next DSTT2 segment will not reach Seattle Center without an additional infusion of cash. Local officials will think that the Federal government will someday change politically and billions of money will be supplied to ST. It will be very disruptive to build the stations with lots of delays and it won’t open until around 2050. It may even have to stop at Denny.
6. Once the other subareas get their low ridership Link projects opened to Everett and Tacoma Done funded to open by 2040, their Board representatives will show no interest in funding further to Ballard.
7. The ridership will be horrible for most of the ST3 stations and Link will thrive mainly through internal Seattle trips along with trips to SeaTac and Bellevue. There will be some sort of operating budget reckoning and the Board will have to slash services. The Board will have to choose between dropping parallel express buses or short-turning some or half of Link trains before the end segments.
8. Stride will be used mainly at commute hours to reach Downtown Bellevue jobs, and will be a source of unending debate on how to make it more productive the rest of the day. There will be lots of proposals but most will be deemed unreasonable.
9. There will be a push to automate Link as the basis of getting more funding in about 10 years. The Board will spin it like it’s some sort of great new idea rather than admit that they’re late to the technology.
I fear you are right, Al. In short, Seattle will spend a fortune on rail and get very little from it. If this goes ahead as planned, Link is basically done. It could have been better, but it could have been a lot worse, too.
Speaking of which, what we are doing is common in the United States. Many cities have wasted a lot of time and effort on bad mass transit projects. It is what people like “d.p.” predicted years ago. What makes Seattle unusual is just the scope. We are spending a fortune on this and yet getting very little.
Unless there is a “hail Mary” (as you put it) we might as well ignore the new Link projects. It is irrelevant to transit in the city. The only way we will see significant improvement in transit is if the buses get better.
With the waterfront shuttle does anyonevknowvwhat rollingvstock will be used. Are they keeping the Access ish buses orvchangingvtobregular Metro vehicles? There is a difference in the accessibility.
There is still a need to hammer home the need for easier transferring, especially between rail lines. The ST3 diagrams look great on paper if everything connects well. It’s the deep and disjointed stations that destroy its usefulness as much as anything. Will people really descend into a very deep hole at Denny just to transfer in the 3D rat maze at Westlake just to get to Everett? The ridership models say yes. The logic says no. They’ll continue to ride Route 8 to Capitol Hill or ride a bus up to the U District.
San Francisco is reeling from port ridership at the deep stations at Union Square and Chinatown. People here don’t discuss this failure or its causes — and yet ST is planning to repeat the exact same mistake in Downtown Seattle..
ST still seems currently platform obsessed. All the travel times are platform to platform in the Enterprise Initiative document. It’s devoid of any transfer time or effort discussion. It’s written as if the authors view things through a car driver lens. And the Board has way too much car-brained thinking too.
As hopeless as getting ST to do anything differently, I think STB still needs to be vocal about station designs. ST redesigned Lynnwood Link extension stations for the worse after the FEIS. They can still do that here.
To not build SODO station with cross platforms is crippling. It’s literally severing the spine of the region and rather than at least somewhat fuse it with an easy cross platform transfer, it’s building way too much effort into transferring. The transit patient may never recover from the spine slicing.
Al, “to build SoDo” AT ALL “is crippling”. Share the damn tracks!
I won’t bore you and other readers with the details again, but a merge from West Seattle is almost free, and the divergence at the curve into Forest Street to West Seattle is at worst fifty million.
There will never be more than six trains per hour per direction on Line 3, and Line 1 is functionally limited to ten ot twelve per hour. This is a double-track transit railroad; it can carry eighteen trains per hour in each direction.
Yes, rebuild SoDo Station a little bit by including a center platform to make reversing transfers more efficient. Include an elevated or underground ramp from the southbound platform to the bus interchange lot for safety. All that would max out at another $25 million.
Doing this preserves the busway. Even in a worst case that a divergence at the top of the ramp curve into Forest Street can’t be built and a short single lane operation of the busway is necessary, it won’t delay buses more than thirty seconds.
Share the damn tracks!
@ Tom:
Certainly the station could be reconfigured to have just one center platform and build the Lander overpass. Or ST could reconfigure SODO like the planned Mariner layout with two center platforms and the center track could be used flexibly at different phases (and build the Lander overpass) . Or ST could give up entirely on the Lander overpass and elevate one or two tracks (an option that was listed as an alternative in WSBLE) which could set the stage for an eventual West Seattle- Ballard automated line.
None of these variations has been given adequate design and analysis. It’s why I generally advocate to “rethink SODO” station. It’s by far the cheapest place to build cross-platform transfers in some form (to maintain the Spine) and the current design is inferior because it both costs lots more and it makes travel on the Spine much harder for riders.
About the SODO Busway: It’s maintained by the City of Seattle and King County Metro — and thus not Sound Transit. Closing it seems to require an additional, separate vote by these entities unless ST takes it by eminent domain. Would Seattle City Council throw a procedural wrench into the ST takeover? It’s doubtful but it’s not impossible.
“ With the waterfront shuttle does anyonevknowvwhat rollingvstock will be used.”
The social media post (https://www.instagram.com/p/DYS9QP0D5-Q/?igsh=MTNrdXE5Z2FhMWhqNQ== ) features a typical NFI XDE60 bus and a DART cutaway style vehicle, so I think those are the rolling stock.
The DART cutaway bus has nothing to show off, so unless they really plan to use that for shuttle, there is no reason to pull one there for the press release.
Al, THANK YOU for that information about the busway ownership. This could be a very useful “bargaining chip” if the City Council is brave (and savvy) enough to use it.
Oh, and leave it to Sound Transit to make the “Smarter Transit” people seem like geniuses. For those who aren’t aware, these people are to buses as Seattle Subway is to trains. They think East Link was a bad project — we should have just ran buses instead. I disagree vehemently with that assertion but I gotta admit, ST3 is so bad that just spending money on buses would be better. A lot better. This is still a massively expensive project in each and every subarea. Yet when the dust settles there will be two stations in West Seattle, two stations north of Westlake and a tunnel no one wants to use. Tacoma will have an extension that will save a little bit of time getting to the airport while the buses most people use still suck. Everett will continue to run express buses to Lynnwood because the train is too slow. The train will get riders closer to Boeing and some of the other bus stops but since it is in (low-density) Snohomish County and there aren’t many stations, expect ridership of maybe a couple thousand, total. Overall it will likely go down as the worst transit project in the world, ever. I guess that is what will be our claim to fame — no one has spent more while providing less than us.
Of course the irony is that our nearest neighbor is doing the opposite. They are well on their way to providing the best transit system per capita in North America. When it comes to transit, Seattle is Goofus and Vancouver is Gallant.
@Al
#6 on your list is really key, I think, when looking forward.
Across various Seattle internet discussions, people keep bringing up “ST4” as some kind of saving grace. The fact is that once Link construction starts to finish “the spine” to Tacoma and Everett, support for any other large expenditures are going to drop like a rock outside of Seattle. Not just from the politicians, but from the voters in those counties.
What projects could possibly be included in ST4 that is going to garner enough Snohomish and Pierce county votes to get it passed? (And East King County?) Snohomish voted 51% “yes” for ST3 and Pierce was only 44% “yes”. Those numbers aren’t going up for ST4. Heck, I don’t know that King County could even get to 58% “yes” for ST4; the eastside numbers are going to drop, as well.
Not sure if Nathan will allow this. Let’s see …
I have a question about a Boston area subway station escalator tragedy. Why do you think most people walked past the person trapped at the bottom of the escalator and didn’t stop to help? And if not help to get him unstuck, then at least help by pushing an escalator stop button, calling 911, or going to get a station worker?
https://youtu.be/1WPj1OJg0Go
A tragic incident.
It looks like some passers-by tried to help but weren’t able to. I can only conclude they didn’t know how to stop the escalator, which makes me wonder how visible the emergency stop buttons are at that station? I wonder whether they considered calling 911 and didn’t for some reason, or whether that didn’t enter their minds?
But those are the people who at least tried to help, as opposed to the other passers-by who didn’t even try. Did they even notice he was in distress? I wonder, did they guess he was simply sleeping or in an altered state of consciousness? Frankly, if I noticed someone sprawled at the bottom of a Seattle escalator, that’d be my first guess. But presumably he was at-least-semi-coherently calling for help, which would make that a less warranted conclusion?
Regardless, a tragedy.
IMO Transit authorities tolerate sleeping and passing out on public property so they are to blame for making something that should be uncommon a rather common sight. So people seeing an unconscious person at the bottom of an escalator assume this is yet another day in America’s transit tolerance towards any behavior and didn’t think the person needed help. This is not specific to escalators. The drug problem is as bad as it has ever been and unfortunately it is only getting worse as tolerance and desensitisation take hold.
Do you have any other reason for reading and posting on STB other than to rag on homeless people on the vehicles you don’t ride at the stations you don’t use and on politicians you don’t vote for?
I confess I haven’t been in the loop around ridership data recently. I seem to recall there being some kind of wide outage of data or delay earlier this year; is that still the case? All this is leading up to my actual question, which is any idea when we’ll start getting ridership data for the 2 Line post-lake crossing opening?
ST posted revised Link boardings for January and new data for February a few weeks ago here:
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership
They apparently fixed the previously inaccurate January 2026 numbers.
They may post the March and April data any day. That will reveal the first crosslake info. The Link tab lets the user sort by day so a few March days can be retrieved when it’s posted but April will be better.
Of course, it takes several months for ridership to develop. Shoreline North looked pretty weak when Lynnwood Link first opened but it has now roughly doubled in use compared to the first few months, for example.
Really looking forward to see how Wilson’s administration plans to get their agenda done given they didn’t bother to read how the branches of a city government work and is already antagonizing the very council they need. They have already made her famous nationally for her inability to answer simple questions without her staff chasing off reporters of trying to shame them as being off topic (echoes of the Trump administration deflection tactics). I got my popcorn ready.
Now that the World Cup is one month (and a day) from kickoff in Seattle, does anyone know if ST has any plans for at least trying to make ID/Chinatown something other than the dirtiest, most dismal station on the system? Visitors from all over the world will be using this station as their primary means of accessing the stadium and one would have hoped there would be some effort put into making it shine – figuratively and literally. Perhaps there are plans that are as yet unseen aside from the work being done on the escalators and elevators. If so, they’re not mentioned on the “Platform” blog. They are “activating” the plaza on match days, which is great, but does nothing for the rider’s experience now or in the future.
The lighting in that station has always been dreadful, and the design lends to a lot of bird mess and trash accumulation – things that of course ST inherited from Metro – but at the very least I hope the agency has plans for a deep cleaning, tile replacement where it’s missing, and generally trying to improve it as much as possible (I fear the lighting issue has been left too late at this point, meaning the dark corners will remain). The event should be a catalyst for upgrades, which would also give the neighborhood a better station experience than what they have.
I boarded a DT Redmond-bound 2 Line run by Series 1 LRV today, the headsign showed Lynnwood. This is extremely misleading. There seems to be some kind of outage. All the information was broadcast by operator.
I am glad they saved the art deco sign bridge from the viaduct. I passed by a few weeks ago as they were completing finishing touches on installation.
I spent so many times over my entire life passing under that thing or peering over it from Victor Steinbrueck Park. A piece of Seattle history!
It’s going to be so revolutionary to finally have mass transit from the Seattle Center all the way to Westlake! (heavy sarcasm)
Route 4 serves between Seattle Center and Westlake too (sort of)
And routes D, 1, 2, 13, 24, and 33.
Monorail: am I a joke to you?
Yayyyyyyyyyy I’m so excited!!! A light rail alignment from Seattle Center to SODO running under 5th Ave in a tunnel paralleling the current tunnel, MULTIPLE TRANSIT BRANCHES, and is just a short walk/bike/drive right now.
I just learned this will replace the SODO Busway. Wow! Now I know this is going to really be worth it!!! These billions of dollars that come from our hard work will be incinerated in this!? This was really worth the vote a decade ago and paying the taxes ever since and getting cheated and lied to and changing the plan and missing the whole point of the project is so worth it!!!
Typical voter: What’s the SODO busway? What routes go to where on it? Oh, I never go to Renton or Kent Tacoma anyway, and I don’t know anybody who takes transit to them. So it’s not something that would affect my feelings for Sound Transit or ST3.
Also typical voter: Why do I want to go to Alaska Junction in West Seattle? I may not want to go all the way to Ballard but I will go to Seattle Center or SLU.
There is less reason to ride to Alaska Junction if you don’t live in West Seattle than there is a reason to ride to Renton, Kent or Tacoma.
>Also typical voter: Why do I want to go to Alaska Junction in West Seattle?
California Ave is a popular and dense retail street, but has the curse of also being a significant boulevard. Kind of like if all the “Old Ballard” businesses were on Market St instead of Ballard Ave.
Talk to anyone in Seattle who commutes via transit but drives on weekends (most people) and they’ll generally agree with the following:
1. A train to Ballard is long overdue because it takes forever to drive there and parking is impossible;
2. A train to West Seattle would be nice so they didn’t have to park over there (most people don’t bother with cross-town buses for neighborhood visits); and
3. Extensions to Tacoma and Everett might make sense for commuters, but isn’t there that commuter train?
I think the vast majority of people have difficulty understanding why a project like BLE might make sense at $12B but makes less sense at $22B, or how a project like WSLE is “affordable” at $4B but not at $7B, while the overall ST3 program cost is nearing $200B between 2017 and 2056.
That’s not because they can’t comprehend the difference; it’s because billions of dollars is an incomprehensible amount of money. Once the “that’s crazy expensive” threshold is broken, people don’t really care if the number goes higher, they just care if they, personally, will have to pay more for it on a monthly or yearly basis. I bet that if you asked 10 people on the street in Seattle when they think ST will build a train to West Seattle or Ballard, the most educated answer you’d get might be “the 2030s or something?” and if you told them ST might need to delay it, they’d say “typical!” and move on with their life.
I doubt most people even know or care about the SODO Busway, except as that weird street in SODO that they almost drove into that one time when they didn’t see the sign that it’s bus-only. And if you asked them about it, they would be like “well do the buses really need it? and if so, why not put the train somewhere else, or turn a different street into the busway, or build the train elevated over the busway like in Chicago or Vancouver?”
“California Ave is a popular and dense retail street, but has the curse of also being a significant boulevard. Kind of like if all the “Old Ballard” businesses were on Market St instead of Ballard Ave.”
California Ave is just a neighborhood shopping street. Ballard has more things going for it — including a large medical office complex (Swedish Ballard), a museum and a popular outdoor attraction (Chittenden Locks and Botanical Garden). It’s also surrounded by a larger area of dense apartments.
Here’s a map of on-street metered parking in Seattle. See where there are and aren’t meters. SDOT monitors on-street demand regularly so the map has a relationship to actual commercial “popularity”.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/25325ab47d83420996d144e940da2aab/page/Curb-Spaces-and-Temp-No-PKG?views=Evening-Rates
I never said West Seattle is as popular as Ballard, I referenced Ballard because I think Ballard Avenue has a similar retail mix to Alaska Junction.
What Alaska Junction has is much better walkability than any destination in Renton or Kent. Tacoma already has light rail on the docket, so transit service is perceived as getting better despite the fact that outside of rush hour, the train will be slower than the bus service it is ostensibly replacing.
Also, a better map of neighborhood popularity based on parking would be the map of neighborhood restricted parking zones (RPZ): https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/7d67dc9c92d74e51a87df8dd4eeba9d9
I wonder what the lack of an RPZ in Ballard, but moderately high evening parking rates, says about the neighborhood’s popularity?
“Also, a better map of neighborhood popularity based on parking would be the map of neighborhood restricted parking zones (RPZ):”
The purpose of an RPZ is primarily to prevent people from using streets as day-long parking during weekdays to go other places. It’s why Rainier Beach Link station area has one.
Rainier Beach Link station area as a destination is definitely less popular than Downtown Renton or Downtown Kent.
Here’s the stated purpose for an RPZ from the City of Seattle web site:
“The Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) Program helps to reduce all-day commuter parking near large commuting centers (like hospitals, universities, business districts, and light rail stations) in residential and mixed-use areas.”
Is there a website where I can see Community Transit ridership data?
Not yet. Micheal is working on it though. We have to ask the agency for the data and each one gives it to us in a different format. So it takes a while to get it and then Micheal has to generate the charts based on the different format.
So far as I know, Community Transit never released route data. In contrast, Metro, Pierce and Sound Transit have all released route data in their annual reports. Community Transit used to release data for certain types of bus routes. For example page 30 on this old report shows ridership for Swift, “Corridor Based”, “Local Feeder”, “Suburban/Rural” and “Commuter”. In contrast, the newer reports don’t have that. They just have the distribution between fixed route buses and other forms (like vanpool, DART and Zip Shuttle) which they’ve always had.
At this point I hope that Trump’s Silly Boy, Sean Duffy, just pulls all Federal Transit Administration funding from Washington State. That would put the kibosh on the WSLE fiasco and probably ensure that the Scolinomish Flyer stops at Mariner. It would also force Oregon to agree to a busway on the I-5 Bridge, rather than extending MAX to a single hundred-foot-high station over the railroad tracks in Vancouver.
Such a sad loss.
We would probably still get Tiddly-Links and the Issaville Trolley, because Pierce is owed so much by North King, and East King has a Columbia River of its own revenue. We’d also get the S-Buses — WOW! –because they’re cheap.
In rather concerned that the New Starts program may go away completely. New rail lines in multiple urban areas are no longer happening. While there are some singular extension projects on the table, only LA, Seattle, Austin and arguably the Bay Area and NYC seem to have broader plans. With so few, it is challenging to build broader bipartisan congressional support.
That’s not to say that FTA is completely dead. Modernization and replacement is a broader need with widespread support. Small Starts like BRT are also going to fare better. And intercity rail seems to be growing in popularity (not FTA but FRA). I just think a program intended to build new rail extensions at high costs and low ridership per mile isn’t going to be a priority for Congress.