How Portland created a sense of place. (Fourth Place)

Taking one of the last Talgo trains to Vancouver BC. (Classy Whale)

This is an open thread.

115 Replies to “Sunday Movies: Portland & Vancouver”

  1. I was at Downtown Bellevue station yesterday for the “mechanical issue”. The Redmond-bound train stopped suddenly half-way out of the station. There was a loud bang and a cloud of smoke rose from the roof of the middle car. Seemed like the driver kept trying to power cycle the train, but it didn’t move again. Didn’t open the doors to let people out either. I hopped on the next Lynnwood bound train bc I figured service was about to be disrupted and I didn’t want to take the 550 home. Redmond bound trains were holding at Mercer Island and Judkins Park on the way back. Worth noting that Sound Transit’s alert didn’t go out until about 25 minutes after the incident.

    1. Yikes.

      When I was a child, my dad, a mechanical engineer, explained to me that all electronics operate on magic smoke. The smoke can be all sorts of colors, from white to green to blue to black, but if you see it, that means some part of your electronics will no longer work since the magic smoke got out. The bigger smoke, the bigger electronics needing replacing.

      Sounds like the operations team tried to troubleshoot for a little too long before the delay was officially announced.

  2. I wanted to pull the Magnolia coverage discussion up to here. Continuing from the previous discussion:

    There aren’t any big peaks for ridership in Magnolia, but of the four corridors (22nd, 28th, 34th, and Viewmont) I think 22nd and 34th are the most promising. I suspect that 22nd and 34th have the highest ridership simply because they are the first corridors directly served by the 24/33. The 24 in particular is winding enough that many riders probably just walk up/down the hill to 28th rather than waiting for it to curve around the horn.

    The proposed “One Seattle” zoning map for Magnolia also seems to push toward 22nd and 34th as the major corridors. It looks like the idea is to have a medium-sized “neighborhood center” at Magnolia Village and two smaller ones at roughly 34th/Gov and 22nd/Dravus. Magnolia Manor is a ridership generator as well, but I suspect much of that ridership could migrate down to 22nd.

    I really like the idea of connecting over the Dravus bridge to the D (and maybe the future Ballard line…). The D is a reasonably good connection during the weekdays, and there’s a decent sized cluster of apartments/retail at 15th/Dravus as well

    Given all that, I think the best option for a combined 24/33 would be to circle via 34th-Gov-22nd-15th/Dravus, offering a connection between all the major nodes in Magnolia and downtown or the D. A good layover point would be at the Interbay golf center, it’s publicly owned and should have restrooms/facilities. The 31/32 would enter via the Dravus bridge and turn south on 22nd-Thorndyke-Galer to Magnolia Village, then branch at McGraw to serve the other two corridors (28th and Viewmont) before ending at the two existing Discovery Park termini.

    https://imgur.com/a/XbGyNv9

    Highlighted are “neighborhood centers”; red for 24/33; blue for 31/32; light blue after 31/32 split. The 31/32 could also rejoin at the north Discovery Park parking lot by extending from Viewmont to Emerson-34th-Gov.

    That would offer good internal connection within Magnolia and very good connectivity for Magnolia Village and 22nd/Dravus. All corridors would then have a one-seat ride to 32nd/McGraw, 22nd/Dravus, or 15th/Dravus.

    1. Every time I took the 33, there was a fairly big crowd that got on at 28th and Condon. I’m guessing this is because that’s the closest stop to the village.

      The area along 22nd has several apartment buildings and some backyard rental cottages, which are largely absent from western Magnolia north-south corridors.

      1. 28th/Condon is the first stop where the 33 and 24 overlap. It’s likely that people are preferentially walking there to take advantage of the overlapping service.

    2. People on the lower end of Manor Apartment/Condo complex walk to 22nd to take 31/33 Plus the townhouse and apartments down the hill east of Magnolia Manor. That’s why 22nd has a lot of riders. I think 24/33’s hottest single stop is are probably 28th Ave W & W Ruffner St and 22nd Ave W & Gilman Ave W respectively.

      I feel like 24 doesn’t have many people left beyond Magnolia Manor, like less than half of what were on board at Magnolia Bridge, but this might be massively improved if there is peak service from 34th Ave W directly to Magnolia Bridge.
      A 19 style express but serving 34th Ave W can attract more people and deal with the capacity issue. If people from W 34th Ave don’t need to take 24 during peak period, there will be more room for people boarding along 28th Ave W and it is probably cheaper this way than running 24 every 15 minutes.

      I just hope whoever making the decision don’t get so invested in their target of FTN and blindly make service frequent to meet the target in the future.
      I think 24 might just be the case that it is more beneficial to break the line up and give each north-south corridor a 30-min headway service during peak period if there is budget to run 24 every 15 minute during peak. People have a pretty consistent routine of when to show up at bus stop in order to show up at work on time. Bus running every 30-minute usually can serve that just fine. Faster trip from doorstep to Downtown is more important in this case.

      1. In terms of ridership, I’m basing it on actual numbers. I have the spreadsheets but you can see charts that show much the same thing (https://seattletransitridership.com/). What stands out is that none of the stops stand out. For example the 24 has five different bus stops in Magnolia that get over twenty riders. They are all spread out. Yet not one of them gets over forty riders. The 33 is similar. The only significant difference is the section on 22nd, where it gets on a hot streak of sorts, with each stop in the teens or twenties. Even at the low end there is decent ridership. For example, at the end of the 24 (in west Magnolia) you have a section with very few riders. It gets to the point where you wonder if it is worth it. But then the bus ends at Discovery Park and picks up more riders than any other stop on the route! Overall it is pretty good considering it is a coverage route at that point (and fairly cheap to cover since there are so few stop signs or traffic lights).

        Since ridership is fairly evenly distributed, favoring one corridor or another is probably not worth it. The one possible exception is the Interbay area. It is not a fair comparison since the bus is so much more frequent but the RapidRide D gets about 240 riders from the D Line. It does fairly well on the 32 as well. I think combining the buses to provide better frequency along that part of Dravus is worthwhile.

        1. I don’t know that comparing ridership directly is fair. 22nd and 28th will always get more ridership because they are the first leg of the journey. Ridership falls off on 34th and even more on Viewmont because the 24 must round the horn (twice in the case of Viewmont) before picking up passengers. People will preferentially walk to the earlier leg of a journey: to 28th rather than 34th; to 34th rather than Viewmont.

        2. “Ridership falls off on 34th and even more on Viewmont because the 24 must round the horn”

          I agree. For those who are going to Downtown Seattle, taking 24 from 34th Ave W is probably very discouraged right now.
          After all these years and with light rail expansion, there are just so many more rental options where it takes about the same amount of time to travel to Downtown Seattle

        3. Yes this tracks.
          It has been very consistent that every time I took 33, there are way more people boarding along 22nd than elsewhere in Magnolia.

          I barely take 24 in the morning, but occasionally take 24 in the afternoon. The number of people got off at Ruffner made me raise my head a few times wondering where is this place that has so many deboard. That also seem consistent with Outbound average daily ridership chart.

        4. “taking 24 from 34th Ave W is probably very discouraged right now.”

          Magnolia doesn’t have that many people, especially when you take out Magnolia Manor and the 33 corridor that are irrelevant to the 19/24. Is there really enough people on 24th and Viewmont Way to justify a separate 19 route for them? It seems a bit extraordinary to have a direct route to Magnolia Village and Viewmont Way given their size, when the 24 exists alongside it.

        5. I don’t know that comparing ridership directly is fair.

          It never is. My point is unlike just about every route in Seattle, there are no big ridership peaks in Magnolia. There are valleys, but they are surrounded by the smaller peaks. Ridership is remarkably spread out. At most you would see a subtle shift if you rearranged things. For example, imagine the 24 started by going on 34th and then served 28th. Of course you would see an increase in ridership on 34th and a decrease on 28th. So what? Chances are, ridership would still not be huge along 34th. It is hard to imagine it leading to an increase in overall ridership — anyone who wants to go downtown just walks (or drives) to a different bus stop.

          In cases like this you mainly want to provide as much coverage as efficiently and effectively as possible instead of trying to focus extra service on one area or another. The current routing actually provides that — it is just too focused on the one-seat ride to downtown. I’m proposing something different. Anyway, this should probably be a post sometime. My greater point is that while people are highly critical of the routing in Magnolia — it just looks terrible — there aren’t any great alternatives.

          That includes this proposal. I’m reasonably satisfied with it but unlike previous plans, I’m not thrilled with it. A lot of riders in Magnolia lose their one-seat ride to downtown. You have a 15-minute midday bus running to downtown but it only covers a relatively small subset of Magnolia. That is inevitable unless you take the current approach — multiple routes and a lot of zigzagging. That is because there is no single pathway through Magnolia that is a lot better than any other. Given that, it makes sense to consider the network. You have buses coming in from Interbay. They should spread out. The buses need to curve around — those curves should be as wide as possible (hairpin curves are bad). You have existing layovers, bus stops and roadways you know work with transit — might as well leverage them as much as possible. That is what the proposal does. Trips within Magnolia/Interbay are much better. There is both less overlap and just better connections. You connect a lot more people to the SPU/Fremont/UW corridor. This means getting to Ballard is easier as well. The big drawback is that a lot of people lose their one-seat ride to downtown. This is unfortunate but a relatively small price to pay.

          One final note. A lot of Magnolia riders would have to transfer to get downtown. There would be two ways to do that. The first is the 24. The second is the RapidRide D Line. While the 24 would run every fifteen minutes midday (at no extra charge) that still isn’t great. The D Line is more frequent. But it also slower for getting downtown as it detours to Uptown. I would try and extend the Metro 8 to Elliott (if they can find a layover/turn around spot). Then I would make the D Line straighter (by skipping Uptown).

        6. Magnolia doesn’t have that many people, especially when you take out Magnolia Manor and the 33 corridor that are irrelevant to the 19/24. Is there really enough people on 24th and Viewmont Way to justify a separate 19 route for them?

          There used to be and all-day 19. But you are right, it wasn’t justified. The population in that part of Magnolia shrunk as household size shrunk. From a relative standpoint it was worse as other parts of the city grew. It transitioned to a peak-only service but that got cut during the pandemic. I could see it operating during peak if there is enough demand. If the western part gets a lot of riders it is actually cheaper than just running more 24 buses. (That is common with express overlay buses.) I’m not sure if ridership is back to that level yet though.

        7. “The population in that part of Magnolia shrunk as household size shrunk. From a relative standpoint it was worse as other parts of the city grew”

          That’s an interesting point. I hadn’t thought that western Magnolia might have had more people in the 70s/80s so a route 19 was more needed.

      2. @HZ

        If every corridor needs an express there’s probably no good way to serve all 4 N-S corridors. The existing route of the 24 covers the whole peninsula but is incredibly unsatisfying, since it doubles back twice.

        1. I think there is if service is back to pre-pandemic level.
          Today, 24 serves 3 corridors and 33 serves 1, both runs two trips per hour most time of the day.
          In 2019, there were actually 8 trips coming out of Magnolia in the morning peak. During AM peak, 24 started at W 34th & McGraw because 19 took W Magnolia riders out to Downtown by skipping 34th Wand 28th Ave W. So 24 only had two corridor to serve and during the time of day when 19 was running, 24 ran every 15 minutes.

          What I proposed was that if, in any universe, they would restore 19 and have 24’s suspended trips, instead of running 24 from Magnolia Village to Downtown every 15 minutes, they should run two separate routes from 34th and 28th every 30 minutes.
          In this way, every corridor gets a 30-min headway service that goes a relatively straight route.
          Trips fromW Magnolia and 34th Ave W to Downtown Seattle would be faster. Although it doesn’t have travel time benefit for trips from 28th Ave W to Downtown Seattle, at least people boarding near Magnolia Manor don’t have to compete seats with people from further west, so it is a win for everyone in Magnolia.

        2. 15 minutes is better than 30. 30 minutes is a hassle to work around, it leads to 20-minute waits where you’re wasting time doing nothing, and it deters people who are on the verge of going-vs-not-going from taking transit. If you do a round trip, the wait going or returning might approach 30 minutes, and if it’s both then you’ve lost a whole hour of your day, and that can mean you can’t fit as many activities into a day or can’t meet as many responsibilities. If you have a 2-seat ride each way, you have no control over how long the transfer wait is: that depends on when the buses are scheduled relative to each other. If the bus is unreliable, you may miss it, and then you have to wait 30 minutes for the next one. If the first leg of your transfer is unreliable, then you miss the second leg. This is especially acute when both routes are 30 minutes. Even if one or both routes are 15 minutes it’s still not great: consider transferring between the 48 and the 8.

          So it’s worth consolidating two routes into one if that makes the difference in being able to achieve 15-minute frequency. The vast majority of people hate waiting more than they hate riding a little further, and they rate transit agencies based on it.

        3. “15 minutes is better than 30. 30 minutes is a hassle to work around,”

          Ok, I realize I could be just very subjective about this.
          I found planning my commute trip around 24 schedule easier than tolerating zigzagging route that makes travel time from Central Magnolia to Downtown Seattle longer than from Shoreline North.

        4. For commuting trips specifically, I’m with @HZ. I’d rather time my trip to make it faster.

          Of course, I’m in a job with flex hours; someone with a more rigid schedule might think otherwise.

        5. If every corridor needs an express there’s probably no good way to serve all 4 N-S corridors. The existing route of the 24 covers the whole peninsula but is incredibly unsatisfying, since it doubles back twice.

          Yes. That is a good summary of the situation.

          Consider the history. These are the routes from 1941. Surprisingly similar to what they were a few years ago. The 19 basically hugs the western shore. The 20 looks a lot like the 33 — it just stays on 15th longer. The 21 looks remarkably like the 24. It makes a big loop — unsatisfying.

          Then you have the routing in the 70s and 80s. This is what I grew up with. Now the buses like quite familiar. The 19 hugs the shore; the 24 does a single loop and the 33 serves east Magnolia. I’m pretty sure each bus ran every half hour in the middle of the day. But at night they stopped running the 19. Instead, the 24 was extended as you see now (one extra, unsatisfying loop).

          Then you have the pre-pandemic era. Now you can see the 19 is peak-only. According to the map, there are 5 trips to downtown and 6 trips to Magnolia. So the 19, which goes all the way back to the 1940s and used to run every half-hour most of the day (in the 1970s and 80s) was relegated to a peak-only route with only a handful of trips. It was basically just a peak overlay.

          Then, during the pandemic, it was cut (like so many peak overlays). Peak-overlay buses are popular. Ideally they both save the riders time *and* the agency money. But they generally make sense only if the base route is crowded and running frequently. Otherwise it is better to just run the base route more often. Even if you do it is just putting lipstick on a pig. Peak-only service is really a minor issue. In this case it mainly benefits those trying to work downtown. This means people get a car or they bike everywhere. This also means that the buses operate as park and ride (or bike and ride). At that point I would err on the side of extra frequency — at least until you are running the 24 quite often. But I really don’t care that much about this type of service because it doesn’t change the fundamentals for Magnolia.

          Magnolia has crappy transit for the reasons mentioned by jd. You have four north-south corridors and not enough density to justify running buses from all of them to downtown. You can’t even justify an all-day, half-hour 19 (let alone buses running every fifteen minutes anywhere). The only way you are going to get decent service levels in Magnolia is if you give up on trying to give everyone a direct ride to downtown.

        6. @Ross Bleakney

          The future zoning map seems to push heavily toward two corridors, 22nd and 34th. 22nd already has medium-density zoning and some development. Also, 22nd and 34th happen to be reasonably well spaced. If it weren’t for the large hills in Magnolia that would probably be “good enough” for service. Of course that will probably take another 10-15 years of growth to materialize.

          https://one-seattle-plan-zoning-implementation-seattlecitygis.hub.arcgis.com/pages/zoning-map

          In a scenario where the 22nd and 34th corridors are served, Viewmont and 28th are just far (and hilly) enough that they should probably be covered as well. I don’t think a forced transfer to head to downtown is good enough to be honest, but yeah a peak express for both corridors is also probably out of the question.

          Which kind of just gets back to the existing 24/33. I’d rather see the 24 serve 34th first (it’s better spaced from the 33 than 28th and has slightly more density) but that leads to a very awkward lollipop shaped route (assuming it serves 34th, then 28th, then Viewmont. And backing up further it seems like there’s just no satisfying way to cover Magnolia…

        7. And backing up further it seems like there’s just no satisfying way to cover Magnolia…

          Yep. That is why I compared it to this puzzle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg. The 24 has two (relatively tight) switchbacks. Magnolia has half hour bus service, everywhere. It is extremely flawed. Some would call it trash. Yet there is no alternative that is clearly better.

      3. The zigzag shape of the 24 is because the all-day 19 was deleted (in the 2014 cuts I think), so the 24 was extended to Viewmont Way and Discovery Park to backfill that segment.

        I think there was still a peak-hour 19, but there isn’t now. I’m not sure if it’s suspended (temporarily due to the driver shortage) or deleted (permanent).

        1. The 2023 documents still listed as suspended, so are a few peak hour 24/33 trips.

        2. That means it will probably come back next year. If Metro wanted to delete it and shift the hours to other routes, it would have to spend months on a whole public process with hearings. The first proposal would have to be out by December at the latest for a change the following September. But lately it has been giving more time for debate and perhaps another proposal round, so at that rate the first proposal would be out about now or June.

          Seattle’s transit fund has more leeway to shift runs with less process, but the suspensions are from Metro base funds so they’d be restored with Metro base funds.

    3. I am not sure how Magnolia Village as a retail center attracts people to go there by bus. It might attract more retail workers than customers I am afraid and it is not the kind of place people outside Magnolia will need to go.

      I feel like transit in Magnolia is pretty much commuting-driven now like many peak only suburban commuter express. In the morning, 24 constantly have people on until Magnolia Bridge. Because of this, the weekday ridership number can downplay how crowded the bus is during peak. I usually take 33 in the morning, but I was late on one day and boarded a 24. The bus was so full that driver has to ask people to wait for next bus at last stop before the bridge. I am sure that’s just a couple trips in the morning, but regardless I think it is about time to add one or two peak trips suspended a few years ago back.

      1. [Magnolia Village] is not the kind of place people outside Magnolia will need to go.

        Agreed. That is why I think my proposal is fine. You can get to Magnolia Village from a lot of places within Magnolia, it is just harder to get there from downtown. That is an OK trade-off.

        I think it is about time to add one or two peak trips suspended a few years ago back.

        I think that is true of a lot of routes. I would like to see the 15 resurrected because it not only reduces crowding but it does so in a way that is more cost efficient than the RapidRide D and better for the riders. I don’t think we are ready to resurrect the old 19 but I agree, there should be a few more 24 and 33 buses during peak.

  3. Portlanders’ view of downtown Portland is improving.

    47% of Portland residents have a positive impression of downtown, up from 39% in March, and 29% two years ago.

    A negative impression is correlated with living in a suburban county or being a Republican. Those having a negative view:
    57% in Multnomah County (most of Portland, Gresham).
    64% in Washington County (Beaverton, Hillsboro).
    72% in Clackamas County (Clackamas, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Sandy).

    93% of Republicans have a negative view.
    43% of Democrats.
    70% of non-affiliated/other parties.

    1. I was last in downtown Portland two years ago, but when I found myself as the only customer of a downtown sandwich shop, at the bottom of a huge office building, at noon on a Thursday, the solitude mostly spoke for itself. If the place doesn’t have customers then, downtown is in big trouble.

      Granted, this was two years ago, so hopefully, things have gotten better.

    2. Just from retail perspective, I see more mall brand stay in Downtown Portland than they do in Downtown Seattle, but it might be just because Oregon is a easier market for physical store due to this relatively cheaper labor and 0 sales tax.

      1. The problem with the malls in downtown Portland is they spent 30 years pricing out the small, unique local shops in favor of the national brands. Now that you can buy from the national brands online, they don’t need as many stores. Meanwhile, the local retail has moved to places like SE Hawthorne, NW 23rd, NE Fremont, etc.

        The thing that keeps downtown retail going is the small, unique stuff that’s still there in places, plus Nordstrom’s 2 stores. It helps that residences aren’t too far away, such as stuff on the South Park blocks or Riverplace.

  4. I take the Cascades down to Portland about 3-4x a year for the past 4 years and have yet to get to ride a Talgo. How does the ride compare to the Amfleets? Hoping I get a chance to try sometime soon

    1. The best thing about the Talgos is they don’t have any slack, so the slamming back and forth doesn’t happen.

    2. I think they are a better ride, but the seats are a bit less comfy and leg room is a little worse than the Amfleets. Still prefer the Talgo overall though, especially if you want a bit of clam chowder.

    3. I’m concerned about losing the Talgo’s tilt-turning feature, that was supposed to minimize losing speed on turns. How much more do the Arios slow down on turns?

      1. The Talgos were never used at speeds that allowed the tilting mechanism to be effective. The locomotives are too heavy. They would need to also purchase light weight locomotives to use with them.

        In Sweden, the X2000 dropped travel time by 40%, so I would expect something like that would be possible, if the correct locomotive were used.

        The 1974 test run with the turbo trains (also light weight tilting equipment similar to the Talgos but with actual light locomotives) did Portland to Seattle in under 3 hours, but I’ve never found an exact number.

        Big problem with the Arios is the weight. They’re really heavy so they’ll be slow to accelerate and take a lot of fuel to run.

        1. Didn’t X2000 or some ICE model have a roadshow (or railshow) for Amtrak in the 90s?

      2. Mike – if memory serves, all Cascades trains are authorized to take curves at Talgo speeds. Sounder and LD (Starlight, Builder) aren’t.

    1. Official announcement said sometime in the fall, so I would think October.

  6. South King Resident wrote in the last article:

    “Several routes are completely lost and some of them don’t even have local service to compensate.

    Maple Valley lost all their service except for a really bad DART route that is practically useless. East Hill Kent still has no service except Route 160 / Rapid Ride I (and no E-W or commuter route). Covington also lost direct service… the 168 is a slow route nobody wants to ride except people making short local trips.

    Up north, we lost the 167 with UW commuter service along 405. The 342 to Shoreline was deleted. The 556 is no longer going to the UW though it was a garbage route through Bellevue Way anyways, so Link is technically faster though the 556 should have always used 405 directly to Bellevue TC. And 257/311 (old 255) so Kirkland lost much of their direct service as well. No fast route to Bellevue either, except through freeway stations and P&Rs. UW Bothell service is limited and going to be messed up more now with Stride S2 skipping it.

    Only Issaquah somehow gets unusually exceptional service to Mercer Island. And I guess my area is lucky to somehow keep the 102… For now. Everyone else is losing out big time though. All the local bus routes here are empty except for select ones like the 105/160. Literally nobody in there except the homeless. Sad because we used to have excellent ridership and far more weekday trips for commuter routes… And that service should have expanded to the weekends.

    I get it being tough to run all these buses to Seattle but they can easily truncate them to Renton, Bellevue, or a Sounder/Link station.”

    1. “Maple Valley lost all their service except for a really bad DART route that is practically useless”

      The 168 still goes west to Kent Station. The “really bad DART route” is the 907 to Renton TC. What’s wrong with it? What did Maple Valley have that it doesn’t now? Maple Valley is small and very far out and undense, so it can’t expect a lot of bus service.

      “East Hill Kent still has no service except Route 160 / Rapid Ride I (and no E-W or commuter route).”

      It has the 165, 168, 914, and 160/I, all going west to Kent Station. This fall the 168 will add peak runs to backfill the frequency of the former 162. The 165 will replace the 164 (132nd, 240th), increasing frequency to 15 minutes peak and midday, and adding late-night service.

      “Covington also lost direct service”

      It has the 168. What “direct service” did it use to have?

      “the 168 is a slow route nobody wants to ride except people making short local trips.”

      What’s slow about the 168? The main thing I’d do with it is increase its frequency to 15 minutes. How do you know Kent residents find it slow? A former STB commentator John Bailo who lived at 104th & KK Road praised the 168 repeatedly and thought it was fine. He also showed us that that intersection is the densest in Kent outside downtown and has a particularly large shopping center for a South King County neighborhood. And that Kent was the largest city in South King County, especially diverse, high ridership for South King County, and that the majority of bus trips that started in Kent ended in Kent (per a city study).

      “we lost the 167 with UW commuter service along 405. The 342 to Shoreline was deleted. … And 257/311 (old 255) so Kirkland lost much of their direct service as well.”

      Who’s “we”? You seem to be throwing out random routes in widely different areas. How can you know what the ridership of all those routes was, and what the residents of those areas particularly wanted and needed. You’re counting the people who commute to downtown or UW, but not the people who go elsewhere or at different times whom those routes may have left out, and who may have benefited from network changes. What we need to know is, which groups of people are larger than the others, which are a wider cross-section of the population, how much are people burdened by not having a former peak express, and it’s a values judgement how one set of trips weighs against another set of trips.

      “Only Issaquah somehow gets unusually exceptional service to Mercer Island.”

      I’m surprised that Issaquah gets so much service. But we’ve been begging for years for Issaquah to get more service. When Metro finally does something right, we should encourage it so that it will do more like that in other areas, and a little potential overservice is better than the chronic severe underservice Issaquah has so far and that other areas have. If we bash Metro for finally giving the Issaquah Highlands excellent frequent expresses to Mercer Island station, it may shy away from doing more things like that. And the Issaquah service is part of improving service to Sammamish and Snoqualmie/North Bend. Those are like two coverage routes that converge at the Issaquah Highlands, giving good service in the shared segment. That’s something Metro should do more of if it can’t make all those corridors frequent their entire length. At least the highest-ridership shared segment between the urban village and a regional transfer (Mercer Island) has exceptional service.

      “I get it being tough to run all these buses to Seattle but they can easily truncate them to Renton, Bellevue, or a Sounder/Link station.”

      Now I’m confused. You complained that several peak expresses to downtown Seattle and UW were eliminated. Now you’re saying it’s OK to truncate them. Truncating them is the same thing as providing more local service to the regional transfer points. Adding runs on the 168 to backfill the 162’s tail is just what that is.

      We’re a bit in the dark because we don’t know why Metro suspended or reorganized all these routes. We know it had to suspend some hours to fit within driver availability, but not why Metro chose those particular routes for it. We don’t know which ones had low or high ridership, unless you happen to know from experience or what passengers told you or reports. You may know it for a few of those routes but not likely for all of them. But in some cases peak runs were emptier post 2022 so Metro suspended them. In other cases it suspended them because it had to suspend something.

      South Link Connections will delete the following routes (* indicates currently suspended routes): 122*, 123*, 154*, 157*, 162, 177, 178*, 179*, 190*, 197*, DART 901. I removed the 165 because it’s simply being split and renumbered.

      1. The 168 used to take a full hour to go between Kent and Maple Valley, but the route has since been streamlined.

        I think it’s fine for local traffic, but as the only transit option in existence between Maple Valley and anywhere else, it’s still too slow. For instance, riding the bus from Maple Valley to Bellevue takes a minimum of two hours, by the time you add up all the connections, vs. a drive time of around 45 minutes.

        1. I get Maple Valley is pretty far. But it’s a growing area with development. And SR 169 is quite an easy highway to run a fast bus on. The only concern is traffic which can get pretty bad there sometimes, which is why I suggested Petrovitsky and Benson as a possible bypass which would take you directly to the new South Renton Transit Center.

      2. 143 and 157 didn’t receive compensating service. Not even a local bus route. 907 only operates from 8-4 which doesn’t even make sense.

        1. Truncating to Link is unacceptable, as Link takes 40-50 mins into Seattle. Very few would choose that and would try their luck to park at the station instead. Sounder is fine, and I think more routes should be consolidated there… And again people will probably choose to park instead of taking the bus.

          But routes like 143 and 157 can’t be reliably replaced with a 168/DART + Sounder. It’s just too slow. For people who just ride along the 168 corridor it’s fine… but it’s not reliable for longer trips. And there is no help for Bellevue / Eastside commutes which was a problem even before.

          I’d say bring the commuter routes like 143, 157, 162, etc. back but send them to Renton for a Stride connection. The 101 into Seattle isn’t half bad either if it still runs frequent, and can actually be faster than Link a lot of times. Local routes can always connect to Kent and Auburn Station which will win out for most riders anyways, except for the weird part north of Kent and south of Renton. Will likely win back a considerable number of commuters from the pre 2020 era.

        2. Also Covington used to have a peak route but I forgot what it was called. It was quite a while ago.

      3. A lot of commuters to go to the Eastside, possibly more than Seattle. There is pretty much zero reliable way from S King County to the Eastside. Seattle is also a little challenging unless you live south of Kent Station where the connection to Sounder is fairly direct.

        The 566 is an option but it is quite slow due to the time it spends in Renton. The trip times are limited too.

        I think Stride will expand connection opportunities to the Eastside but there needs to be opportunities to get people from S/SE King County onto it.

        1. In terms of job/housing locations, the highest concentration of employment for South King residents is South King. There are more people employed around the airport (Zip Code 98188, 17k), Renton (98057, 15k), and Kent (98032, 21k) than in Bellevue (98004, 10k). Downtown Seattle (98101, 98109, 98104; 30k) is much more than Bellevue, but less than the local zip codes. By city, Seattle is number one by far at 75k, but Kent still leads Bellevue for second 26k to 20k, and Renton is at 19k. (all sourced from LEHD)

          For commuters in South King County, East side connections are ancillary compared to intra-area connections and Seattle connections. Still important, and I’m not sure how LEHD handles something like Amazon that has significant presence in many parts of a region, so this could systematically understate the need for good connections to the East side. Still, I think the key transit link missing is an all-day express between Kent and Seattle which would most naturally be provided by all-day Sounder service to be honest (though that may be expensive and difficult). The 150 is still better than most other regions would have, but it’s slow for a regional express service by Seattle standards.

        2. A good portion of SE King County is unincorporated. Do you have numbers for all the zip codes east of Kent and Renton? A lot of commuters feed into Kent/Renton as well. 405 is a major bottleneck pretty much any time of the day. There is definitely people, including myself, who use that corridor. People on Reddit constantly post about how we need 405 rail and an improved traffic situation. It’s not just me.

        3. And anyways Renton is the easiest location to feed in from S King. It’s very accessible and will connect to Stride. A quick light rail extension from Rainier Beach will be huge for S King County compared to going to Tacoma where most would keep taking the express bus or Sounder (except for local / airport trips, or Stride connections at TIBS). I’d like to see it all built out.

          No one should be forced to use I-405 or SR 167. We have great transit alternatives and plans for I-5, SR 520, and I-90… but why not the most notorious, congested corridor in the entire state? Why are we making toll lanes and flyovers for no transit to use?

        4. There’s definitely a missing Kent-Seattle all-day express. The surrounding cities have either a Metro route or an ST route. Renton 101, Southcenter 150, Auburn 578, Federal Way 577/578/Link. Kent is the only one missing. The 150 takes a full hour or longer from Kent Station to Westlake, so that’s not adequate transit service. Especially when that’s just part of most trips: e.g., East Hill to downtown is 160+150, and East Hill to Fremont is 160+150+40.

          We’ve been asking ST for a Kent-downtown ST Express route for fifteen years. We suggested rerouting the 578 to Auburn-Kent-downtown to make it service-hour neutral. It has refused to do any of it. Finally in Metro Connects 2016, when Metro assumed ST would delete the 577/578 with Federal Way Link, Metro provided a backfill route, Auburn-Kent-downtown as we had suggested. That was removed in a later version of Metro Connects, probably due to Metro’s tightening budget.

        5. The 162 was Kent’s only express into Seattle and it’s getting deleted. So…. It’s quite bad for people over here.

          The 162 was pretty low ridership though, since parking for the Sounder is usually the move for the few car brained people here bold enough to use transit.

          There’s also quite a few carpool/Vanpool scenarios where people get dropped off at a freeway or major transit center rather than using local routes.

          But the point is, if all our major freeway corridors were connected with frequent and reliable transit… Anyone can make any trip they want without driving.

          Even if it’s “only” 20k to Bellevue, that’s a large number. If more people work in Renton, send an express bus to Renton. Then they connect to Stride.

          The point is enabling maximum connectivity. People are opposed to my South Bellevue connection with Stride, but how else would anyone from Eastgate, Factoria, or Issaquah get to the airport?

          It used to be a 2 seat ride with 554 + 1 Line. Once the East Link changed happen, it’s going to become a 3 seat ride. It’s not very reliable and ID is a terrible station layout. 556 + Stride could be so much better (with that transfer at TIBS). And the 203, 240, etc. have even less luck.

          And Trailhead Connect and other weekend activities would be so much easier to use with transit from pretty much anywhere.

          It just doesn’t make sense to force people to go into Seattle to get to the Eastside when we have I-405, which is an excellent corridor to expand higher speed transit options.

        6. “The 162 was Kent’s only express into Seattle and it’s getting deleted.”

          I’m talking about an all-day express. The 162 doesn’t help if you’re traveling midday or weekends.

          The 162 ran when Sounder was running, so it’s when you least needed an express, and when I-5 is the most congested. The 162 took longer than Sounder, so we were paying for an expensive peak-express route that was slower than Sounder.

        7. “If more people work in Renton, send an express bus to Renton. Then they connect to Stride.”

          We may be talking at cross purposes here. We’ve been advocating for a 167 Stride (Auburn-Kent-Renton), and WSDOT’s 167 master plan is leaving open the possibility of BRT.

        8. “People are opposed to my South Bellevue connection with Stride”

          I haven’t heard of this. You want S1 to serve South Bellevue station? As a detour from 405, or via 112th or Bellevue Way? It’s probably late in the process to change the alignment, and ST would be concerned about Renton-Bellevue and Burien-Bellevue travel time, where “Bellevue” means Bellevue TC.

        9. “I think Stride will expand connection opportunities to the Eastside but there needs to be opportunities to get people from S/SE King County onto it.”

          I agree. Stride was seemingly a neglected child of the 405 master plan — not a systemic regional transit network plan restructure. It looks like a great line on paper but it misses most of the radial regional buses that is could have served. That includes express buses on SR 520, I-90, SR 181 and I-5 South — and massive activity hubs at SouthCenter, Factoria and Alderwood.

          Stride 1 only has five stops! Only Downtown Bellevue (amidst office buildings) has anything more than modest activity immediately around it.

          STX Route 560 already struggles to be productive. Even though aspects of Stride 1 will make end to end travel times better, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will attract hordes of new riders. The hassles of making double transfers and getting to two of the stops in the middle of freeway land go against its ridership potential.

          I point this out because I think Stride 1 will have disappointing ridership when it opens. It may be so bad that there will be little interest in enhancing it with infill stops that may deviate from the 405 Express lanes. It may take grass-roots and city-driven advocacy for more stops to paint a picture of a more viable and sustainable reality for the service.

        10. SKR,

          Those numbers are from a custom polygon drawn around everything in South King (south of Seattle, north of the Pierce County line, not Vashon Island). You can pull all numbers for any geography using the LEHD OnTheMap tool. I don’t disagree on the generalized need for better transit between south and east King, but suburb-to-suburb rail service is really hard to get right based only on the fact that suburban job markets tend to be much less centralized. It’s hard enough to run good transit between a decentralized area and a centralized one; it’s much more difficult to do between two decentralized areas.

          Compare the ridership on the IE/OC Metrolink line to any line serving LA proper – it’s significantly lower even though there are a ton of jobs and residents who rely on it (https://metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/about/agency/facts-and-numbers/fact_sheet_q2-fy26.pdf). That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist, or that it’s a waste, it’s just not the highest priority corridor. In LA, rail service on Wilshire and their I-405 is so much more important to prioritize, so that’s why those corridors have multi-billion dollar improvements while IE/OC is still not really up for any kind of improvements.

          I-405 is in a similar situation to the IE/OC corridor. It’s a very important corridor in some sense, but there are more important things to do first. While Seattle (thankfully) has built out our equivalent of Wilshire already (downtown – Capitol Hill – UW), secondary Seattle-centered rail corridors almost certainly make more sense for investment on ridership terms than primarily suburban ones (provided you consider investment in a Highway 99 rail alignment unlikely). And even accounting for the suburban nature of Sound Transit making the agency more likely to prioritize a bad suburban route over a good urban one, I still don’t see why I-405 would be chosen for additional investment when it’s got current investment that needs to be finished still.

        11. “Stride was seemingly a neglected child of the 405 master plan” – I have the opposite take. Stride is only possible because of the 405 master plan and the resulting HOT buildout. Further, the 405 master plan as long included the missing piece for Renton: HOV access northbound at Southport/Landing, which would allow for the F & Stride to have direct transfer. It’s project #6 right on page 3: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-01/I405-SR167-Financial-Plan-Final-Report-2023.pdf

          Hilariously, on page 12 it says, “not currently planned for I-405 BRT use,” which I read as a WSDOT planner saying “this is going to be used for BRT but the morons at ST/Renton city hall haven’t figured it out yet so I can’t say it in this document”

          It is anticipated back in 2002 as well, in less detail but still anticipating the importance of direct access ramps for BRT on page 32
          https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/I405RecommendationReport2002.pdf

        12. @ AJ:

          Providing HOV or Express lanes can help an express bus route go faster. That’s however not my comment. Stride should have been part of a larger planned transit service network that takes the opportunity to use HOV lanes as part of a larger transit structure.

          Adding HOV or express lanes is not a guarantee of great transit service. It’s simply a way to move buses faster on a segment.

        13. Sounder is great if you’re just getting between the two stations.

          But the issue is getting to Kent or Tukwila Station. There aren’t good quality routes serving the station.

          And it goes up to King Street really fast but it can take a substantial amount of time to transfer to Link or other bus routes within downtown… Such that a peak hour bus or light rail would’ve been preferred from the start.

          IMO any commuter rail like Sounder should be built as a modern faster metro, that can eventually merge with existing light rail tracks for local service. Kind of like a trunk based bus service.

          Sounder would be way more useful if it didn’t just terminate at King Street, but continue along north to Westlake and beyond. That’s why I have suggested Link bypass lines. Extend existing Link rail and use trainsets with higher top speeds.

        14. “Sounder would be way more useful if it didn’t just terminate at King Street, but continue along north to Westlake and beyond.”

          The revised Link station locations for CID are even worse than the setting today. There will be no direct Sounder transfer to or from the 1 Line even if Ballard Link is built as planned. That includes SLU and Seattle Center.

        15. “Adding HOV or express lanes is not a guarantee of great transit service. It’s simply a way to move buses faster on a segment.”

          Express toll lane has more flexible control on what’s the demand in the system. WSDOT can tweak toll price precisely to reach certain sweet spot that is best for its capacity. But in reality other things factor into the dynamic toll pricing. For example, it was decided it shouldn’t exceed certain price point. If toll lane system is operated based on sole purpose of caping demand, yes there is a guarantee free-flowing buses, but people might be seeing ridiculous toll price during busy hour.

        16. “not currently planned for I-405 BRT use,”

          Most of the interchange improvements south of Southport that were in original master plan and a constantly updated Forward Compatible Plan are not in current Renton-to-Bellevue projects. They probably just wanna emphasize that this project seems like something you would expect for Stride but unfortunately they are not building it yet.

          They probably hit a budget limit when they did implantation plan for I-405 and decided to worry about those things when they have a projects for I-405 south end between I-5 and Southport.

        17. “There’s definitely a missing Kent-Seattle all-day express.”

          I suspect that’s because there is not a reliable route to run a Kent-to-Seattle express that is much better than 150 or 165 transferring 1 Line. Sending express bus via SR 167->I-405->I-5 is probably not gonna be much faster than existing options.

        18. “Sending express bus via SR 167->I-405->I-5 is probably not gonna be much faster than existing options.”

          Ummm… Of course it would be? Do you know how long the current 150 takes?

          Someone can get from Seattle to Tacoma or Puyallup even faster any time of the day. Kind of ridiculous.

        19. Although I think turning 150 into a Rapid Ride would be more useful than creating a Kent express. But that is far down the road for now.

          Also they need to solve the Tukwila mess. Tukwila should get their own bus. No clue why 150 is meandering in Southcenter and Tukwila P&R.

          Once the 150 reaches Southcenter, it should hit I-5 immediately and head to Seattle. With the Rapid Ride line, you’d hope to see some bus infrastructure to get it on the freeway quicker (queue jumps for example).

          The problem with Metro is trying to combine multiple city services into one express. An express should serve the cities at the endpoints. If anything in between, it should be on the way with limited stops (e.g. Link stations, freeway stops, etc.).

        20. I just think we could offer more phenomenal service if we could reliably run long routes and let local routes feed into express routes. That means no dedicated express line… Just trunks of local routes feeding into the express. Way fewer transfers and way more potential for travel. Less service hours too. The only downside is for operators who have to stay on the road longer… Which brings me to my next point.

          The problem with long routes are delay and traffic. It’s reliable for people at the start of the route, but becomes troublesome for those in the middle. But if we have TSP, queue jumps, and BAT lanes.. that’s no longer an issue..buses should be able to run at the reliability of a train. Maybe a few minutes late, but nothing atrocious except in extreme circumstances.

          I’m sure we can get the car brained on board for some Rapid Ride infrastructure. They get a free right turn lane (BAT). Many drivers are frustrated at intersections missing a right turn lane, so why not add one and let buses use it as a queue jump? If done in all 4 sides of a busy intersection, it can keep things moving really well for everyone. The right turn lane would turn onto another BAT lane, so it should be free flowing if people aren’t cheating.

        21. But during peak hours, I would ban cars (except HOV in some cases) from those lanes I suggested since there can be backups after they make the turn and try to merge into the traffic there.

        22. Still, I think the key transit link missing is an all-day express between Kent and Seattle which would most naturally be provided by all-day Sounder service to be honest (though that may be expensive and difficult). The 150 is still better than most other regions would have, but it’s slow for a regional express service by Seattle standards.

          I agree. As Mike noted, a lot of people have suggested that for a long time. It wouldn’t have to be just Kent, either. An all-day Sounder equivalent — but skipping Tukwila Station — would be quite valuable. Connecting to Tacoma might be overkill (since it doesn’t really work as a way to get from Tacoma to Seattle). Then again, maybe there are enough people heading to Tacoma (from Puyallup and Sumner) to justify it. You want that in a bus route since it means more ridership but not more crowding.

          I suspect that’s because there is not a reliable route to run a Kent-to-Seattle express that is much better than 150 or 165 transferring 1 Line. Sending express bus via SR 167->I-405->I-5 is probably not gonna be much faster than existing options.

          I disagree. I think it would be dramatically faster. At noon it takes about an hour to get from the Central Kent to downtown via the 150 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/MJoSVgciq12JEz1H6). Driving takes about a half hour unless there is traffic. Traffic is a mixed bag. The bus can avoid some traffic on 167 by using the HOT-3 lanes. Then it has to leave the lanes to get into the ramps to go west on 405 (towards I-5). Then the bus can work its way into the HOV lanes on 405. This continues until the bus goes northbound on I-5. Unfortunately, the lanes dump the bus out on the right lane so again the bus has to move into the far left lane if it wants to avoid traffic. Then (one more time) it has to move out of the HOV lanes to exit to get to the SoDo Busway. Thus if traffic is really bad it will get delayed but still be faster than surrounding traffic. More to the point it will leapfrog the 150. The 150 is a great bus. But it is kind of like being at Lake City taking the 41 to get downtown (back in the day). It works, but it is much faster to just go out Lake City Way and get downtown that way. In other words, the express part of the 150 (to Seattle) is great for those in Tukwila but not great for those in Kent. From Kent’s perspective, the 150 provides a good rider to various Tukwila locations but is a very slow way to get into Seattle. Transferring to Link to get downtown is even slower.

          But remember, this is intended to complement Sounder. So when traffic is really, really bad it isn’t running. Sounder is. Of course there will be times when traffic delays the bus, but overall it still seems dramatically faster than the 150 and faster than driving (depending on your destination).

          The main reason they haven’t added this is that Kent is just out of luck. It is expensive to serve any area with long-distance express service. That is why it is rare with Metro. Yes, there is the 101 but Renton is a lot closer to Seattle than Kent. This really should be a Sound Transit route, since it more there style. But for whatever reason, ST has focused their efforts on Auburn. They run express buses from Auburn to Seattle (but not from Kent).

          This brings up another issue. From Auburn to downtown it is about as fast to go via Federal Way as it is 167. Thus they can kill two birds with one stone: connect riders to Link while also giving riders an express to downtown. That is also an option with Kent, although it would require a detour: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2D3VtAFBdw6xkRUG7. Without traffic that is still about a half hour — much faster than the 150. It would also connect Downtown Kent with the community college, which is a much bigger destination than Downtown Federal Way. (There is local service but this would be on top of that.) I’m not saying that is the best approach but it would certainly be an option worth considering.

          As of now there is very little evidence of any creativity at all within the Sound Transit planning department. This is yet another sign of its dysfunction. I’m sure someone at the organization is just nodding their head reading this thinking “I had that idea years ago”. This ain’t exactly brain surgery. Yet nothing has come of it. Just like the trains, everyone is just sticking with what existed back in the day — afraid to rock the boat too much. I would not be surprised if working at Sound Transit feels a lot like working at Boeing twenty years ago. You know the agency is dysfunctional and all the really smart people are leaving to take other jobs. But you are so close to retirement you don’t want to mess it up. Just keep your head down and go with the flow.

        23. “Sending express bus via SR 167->I-405->I-5 is probably not gonna be much faster than existing options.”

          “Ummm… Of course it would be? Do you know how long the current 150 takes?”

          It’s not just the 150, it’s the 162 too. When I last looked at the 162, it took 45 minutes from Kent Station to Westlake. We should be targeting 30 minutes given Kent’s distance and size. Currently the 162 is even slower, AM northbound 58 minutes, PM southbound it takes 60-68 minutes. That’s as slow as the 150 was! What’s the 150 now? AM northbound 56 minutes, PM southbound 66 minutes. Jeez, we might as well replace the 162 with the 150 because its “express” nature isn’t adding much value.

          The 162 runs on KDM Road and I-5 with only one stop at the KDM P&R. You can’t get much more express than that. I assume 167+405+I-5 might be faster, but we don’t know because there’s never been a bus route that way, and I’d be concerned about 405 congestion. But the point is, somebody should study it and see if it can be faster! Or what else can be done.

          The 150 has also gotten slower. I remember it taking 20 minutes from downtown to Southcenter in the 2010s if you avoided the worst congestion periods, and now it takes 40 minutes.

          And what exacerbates the 150? It’s those turn-turn-turns in the Southcenter area to get to the bridge over 405. I’ve sometimes wished the 150 could remain on Interurban Blvd/West Valley Highway through the Southcenter area, though that’s a rather long walk from the retail people are going to, so it’s probably too far. But that would solve a significant chunk of its slowness problem.

        24. I get your frustration with the network, SKR. Unlike 90 or 520 or I-5 to Northgate and Snohomish, there has not been much added to make bus service between the 167 cities and Seattle more useful. The only HOV direct access ramps are at Federal Way, for example and that’s still well west of 167..

          All the support has surrounded South Sounder for a few decades. It was wildly successful before Covid and is still well-used. However, it’s operating on borrowed tracks and has major time / direction restrictions.

          Add to that SR 167 access is difficult from the citify Diwntowns and Sounder stations. Even if SR 167 had a bus only lane it wouldn’t easily serve the Sounder stations in the downtowns because they are still several blocks away from the freeway.

          There also is a timing problem. That is that Metro just gave an overhaul to South King bus route structure. I’m not sure if Metro wants to revisit what they just finished.

          That said, here are some seemingly obvious ideas that I see:

          1. Extend RapidRide I to Rainier Beach. Just do it! Renton needs it!
          2. Tell ST to not take the SODO busway for West Seattle Link. Make ST compensate South King with faster transit service other ways if they do.
          3. Explore ways to connect 167 corridor with South Bellevue. Transfers to Stride 1 are possible at 44th. The route could maybe skip South Renton if needed.
          Options like extending RapidRide F north of Renton Landing could be explored or a new Stride route from 167 cities to South Bellevue..
          4. Assess whether a RapidRide southward from Allentown Station would help justify its construction, especially for Route 150. The station is up for elimination and needs to lip synch for its life if it is to open before 2060.
          5. Explore adding service that would run directly between Link and Downtowns in Auburn and Kent rather than relying on Metro’s circuitous circulator routes they run. It looks pretty easy to me to use 228th or SR 516 to get quickly from KDM or Downtown Kent and use SR 18 to get between Federal Way Link and Downtown Auburn. Maybe an upside-down “C” route between KDM and FW Link Stations that swings by both Downtowns could be useful. Of course it’s still a slog on Link but ST Express could come in handy to cut travel time.
          6. Cascades trains should stop at Kent and/or Auburn. The two cities and those cities east of them have the population of Thurston County and triple that of Mason County.

        25. “There also is a timing problem. That is that Metro just gave an overhaul to South King bus route structure. I’m not sure if Metro wants to revisit what they just finished.”

          That was for Federal Way Link. There’s still the Stride 1 restructure coming. The Federal Way Link restructure had little affect on Kent beyond prioritizing east-west service to KDM station. That has little to do with north-south service to downtown Seattle or the future Renton S1 station.

          There’s also a potential RapidRide I restructure centered on Kent. That’s unlikely to be much because the changes were done in 2010, so that route 160 could be created to prefigure the I. So the feeders to the I are already set.

          But the potential of an express or some other changes to make feeders to S1 at Renton really haven’t been considered much yet. But there will be more interest and demand in that when S1 gets closer to opening. Stride is a “poor man’s light rail” corridor, so the only way to leverage it the most efficiently and for people to benefit from it is to have good feeders to it. The cities and agencies really haven’t addressed that much yet.

        26. The 162 schedule is weird. If you check One bus away, they usually run 15-20 mins early or even close to 30 mins early some days… Provided the driver is on time and not driving incredibly slow. It’s most certainly not as slow as the 150. Don’t forget it also goes all the way to Lake Meridian, unlike the 150 or Sounder.

        27. Renton could’ve opened a very cheap busway if they pushed for an Exit 5 HOV entrance.

          Exit 2 – South Renton
          Busway goes along Grady Wy. And Main Ave past the city hall.
          Then onto Bronson Way past the Renton Library / skims a bit of downtown as well.
          Then onto SR 900, Sunset Blvd and Houser Way Bypass. From Houser Way Bypass they could add an HOV entrance directly onto the express lanes.

          This way Stride S1 can skip Renton, and simply stay on the freeway from TIBS. Expand 566 to an all day route that uses this new busway. And during peak hours, run the 567 again that takes advantage of the new flyover. Then add a new route between SeaTac airport and Bellevue TC via, S Bellevue, with a stop at S Renton. Finally, an Issaquah to SeaTac route via 405 could be a final addition once service hours are available. Extend Rapid Ride F to the Exit 7 freeway station.

          Second step, improve Rainier at the end of SR 167 and MLK to have a rapid connection to I-5. Add bus lanes. That way the I-405/I-5 bottleneck can be completely avoided. Express buses like the 101, and a new Kent to Seattle express would use MLK (101 already does) to bypass all traffic and quickly make it into Seattle. After that, we should expect some HOV entrance to the SODO busway (which ST shouldn’t get rid of).

          I’m sure the funding they’re putting up for Stride could’ve funded all of this if they cared about riders down here.

      4. “Now I’m confused. You complained that several peak expresses to downtown Seattle and UW were eliminated. Now you’re saying it’s OK to truncate them. Truncating them is the same thing as providing more local service to the regional transfer points. Adding runs on the 168 to backfill the 162’s tail is just what that is.”

        Local services are not direct express services. A truncation and transfer is fine, if the routes are direct. Routes like the 168 are not direct and make unnecessary deviations. That makes sense for a local route with short trips. There needs to be coverage to where people live. But they need to fill in peak hour with express runs that skips certain stops and get people across the route quicker. I would like to see the “X” system come back to a lot of routes. Certain routes could also feed into a Downtown route to “boost” frequency. For example the 105 can easily “feed” into the 101 during peak hours. This encourages ridership by minimizing transfers while also boosting frequency on existing routes.

        1. The 168 west of Wax Road (Covington) seems straight enough. It currently runs on KK Road. Earlier it turned to 104th-240th to serve more of First Hill. I would have found that frustrating, but it’s straightened out now. The only possible deviation I see is the Timberlane crescent. Is that what you’re talking about.

          That goes back to the 168’s history. It used to terminate in Timberlane. In the 2010s Metro got a state grant for rural-area transit to extend the 168 to Maple Valley. That lasted for several years, and now the Maple Valley extension seems to be permanent.

        2. Also the 168 only serves Southern Maple Valley.

          The 143 had a more N-S coverage in comparison.

          The 168 sort of just goes to the main shopping center at the end of SR 516 closer to Ravensdale… Then ends. No park and ride, no real connection to the rising apartments and neighborhoods there.

          I think with Stride, Metro should seriously consider a restructure for Maple Valley to give it a better route into Renton and TIBS.

      5. The 162 is scheduled for 45-50 mins in the morning to Westlake… But is clearly operating Early within 35-40 mins from Kent Station. Sounder takes 27 mins, and drops you at ID which is even less convenient than Westlake in front of the light rail station and many other valuable transfers.

        The 162s low ridership is probably due to it being taken by Sounder park and riders. I also think it’s odd they operate more 162 trips directly to Lake Meridian than 102 Fairwood trips despite 162 ridership being quite a bit lower (7 riders per platform hour vs 18). A realignment along SR 167 with a Kent *all day* express stopping in S Renton would likely draw more attention.

        I do think 162 need to go because of the low ridership but an alternative was needed.

    1. Just wanna point out that SDOT took one lane from westbound direction which had 3 lanes. So in theory this has little capacity impact on eastbound.

    2. The BAT lane actually starts from east of Western Ave, which is a little help for 24/33, but not much. The Queen Anne Ave dedicated turn lane is the middle lane. The right-turn still gets its dedicated pocket lane.
      All they did was re-striping without any sidewalk or pavement works, but still a very impressive turnaround.

      Also, just noticed that ConnectPoint digital boards were finally installed at Ballard Ave and Leary at 15th St NW as part of Route 40 project.

  8. I enjoyed the Portland video. I went to check fourth place’s Seattle vid from 7 months ago. Flagging for awareness: I have never experienced such whiplash on YT. Part 2 and 3 has nasty, dehumanizing language/perspectives that cannot be welcomed in urbanist spaces.

    My hope is that he will grow from being called out, but the chances are slim since he was comfortable enough using pro-ICE talking points on his channel…

    1. Usually the Sunday Movies are from creators I follow (e.g., CityNerd, RMTransit, NotJustBikes), or an STB author/commentator has recommended it, or YouTube has suggested to me a similar video and it has information or a perspective we haven’t covered yet. These two came from a shared spreadsheet I have of potential videos; I said I was running out of videos and one/some of the other editors put a half dozen links in, and these were two of them.

      Since the Portland one was full of placemaking successes, I put it in. I wondered if it overstates a bit how good things are in Portland, but we’d need a Portland resident to evaluate that, and we have a couple among the commentariat. I haven’t looked at their other videos yet, although we did feature on earlier, The history of Gasworks Park.

      Are Parts 2 and 3 referring to Classy Whale’s Vancouver experiences? I haven’t watched those, nor seen the ICE comments you mention. I put this one in now mainly because an Airo article is coming, so this will bookend the end of the Talgo and the beginning of the Airo.

      I’ve ridden the Cascades Talgos a bunch of times, but the last time was in the mid 2010s, since I haven’t been traveling since then. Much of what CW says or shows in the Vancouver trip is the same as what I remember.

      1. I think 253Bred is referring to Fourth Place’s video regarding Seattle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqZ1ZWU6lg), it does contain a lot of bad rhetoric. I hadn’t seen that one before. I added the Portland video to the list of potential Sunday Movies after watching it and finding it rather benign, but I appreciate the callout to check for problematic content.

  10. I’m really confused by Sound Transit committee duties and roles.

    Today, ST cancelled the System Expansion Committee this month:
    https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2026/260522%20System%20Expansion%20Agenda%20-%20CANCELED.pdf

    This after have a second called special Executive Committee meeting last week:
    https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/ActiveDocuments/260514%20Executive%20Special%20Agenda.pdf

    Then there is the Finance and Audit Committee.

    Committees duties are explained here:
    https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/board-directors/board-committees

    In reading the explanations, it seems to me that any adjustments to system expansion should have been discussed at a System Expansion Committee this month rather than the Executive Committee. By cancelling the upcoming meeting today, has ST made a mockery of its own committee structure? Could a Board action next week on system expansion even be considered legally challengeable because it did not come from the System Expansion Committee?

    Note too that the System Expansion committee has not had any review of the recent West Seattle Link cost reductions to the capital program — which is tacitly assumed in the larger Enterprise Initiative motions.

  11. I watched the controversial Twisted Seattle video. It’s really two videos in one: the first part extolls the extensive new urbanism and streetcar suburb legacy in Ballard, Fremont, the CD (23rd & Union), eastern Capitol Hill (14th), Pike Place Market, and SLU. The second part is a rant claiming progressivism caused the homelessness and crime that Pike-Pine and downtown suffer.

    At first I thought “whiplash” meant the images flipped too much between widely different things every couple seconds. But as I got into the second part I thought it might mean the contrast between the two parts, or how the channel (“Fourth Place”) appears to be about urbanism but then gets into this. The flipping of images like a slideshow didn’t bother me: many videos do that. The video’s comments took the second view: “wow whiplash!”, “shell shocked in the second part there”, “that took such a hard right turn. Seattle is one of the safest cities in the US.”

    The biggest problem with the content of the second part is a lot of it is mischaracterization. CHOP wasn’t a “brief civil war”: it was a short-lived withdraw of police from a few blocks for a couple months. The rest of the city immediately around it went on as usual; there was no one army vs another army trying to take over City Hall, the city government was never in question, and the city wasn’t shut down. I lived ten blocks from CHOP and walked through it on my way to Trader Joe’s. I always felt safe, I felt the vandalized businesses didn’t deserve it, and a got very angry at the graffiti in my favorite park. The basic “Black Lives Matter” message is a serious civil rights issue, which the city recognized when it made the street mural permanent.

    Other quotes. “Crime, homelessness, and graffiti are all on the rise.” No, crime is going down again. Homelessness may have flatlined; at least it’s not growing as fast as it was in the early 2020s. Graffiti I’m not sure if it has increased or not.

    “Seattle is the quintessential progressive American city.”: No it isn’t. It’s much less progressive than San Francisco or the Bay Area. People get this idea that Seattle and Washington state are ultra-liberal, but then it turns out the residents have centrist tendencies that contradict this stereotype that keep it from going all-out. The centrist tendencies have always been there my whole life, you just didn’t notice them. It’s why Seattle doesn’t get as extreme as San Francisco does.

    “Most of the city is filthy and overrun with career criminals walking amongst us”: This is such an overexaggeration it discredits the rest of his argument.

    Then he says progressivism causes all the crime and homelessness and empty storefronts, and CHOP was the culmination of progressivism (and nothing else), and a lot of people left the city after CHOP and a lot of businesses closed due to it. Where to begin. The spike of homelessness and crime and drugs was caused more by the disruptions of the pandemic than by CHOP or progressive policies. The reason there are still people on the street is the city doesn’t have enough resources to fully deal with it. That’s due to federal and state policies that limit the resources available to cities. Otherwise the city could “just do it” and fix everything like Finland would, but it doesn’t have the resources. And if it did fix everything like Finland would, well, that would be “progressive”, and I thought he said progressive was bad. The far left would probably complain about a Finland approach as much as they complain about everything else. Ooh, Finland has capitalism, can’t have that.

    Did a lot of people leave Seattle after CHOP? Some did, but not enough to be noticeable. A lot more left after the 2008 crash. In the late 2000s in southwest Capitol Hill, every other apartment had a “For Rent” sign, as people who had moved here recently went away again. That didn’t happen in the 2020s.

    “True new urbanism simply can’t coexist with progressive public policy. You want fare-free transit…”: Stop right there. Free transit now is a minority position, not something “all progressives want”. There are other factors, like the money that goes into free fares can’t go into more bus runs that would ultimately be better, or how nominal fares discourage the worst of American misbehavior — all that crime he was talking about. And free fares have never been a major Seattle movement. And we have expanded discount fares for low-income people. So what does “progressive” mean? Just the stuff that the 200 perpetual protesters shout about?

    It reminds me of the alt-history videos that speculate what if the American left and right got into a civil war. As they add details it becomes clear that “left” doesn’t mean the 50% left-of-center, but the far-left minority and a set of loud demands they have.

    So ultimately he’ll have to decide whether he wants to promote urbanism or his reactionary viewpoint, or do both separately. He says urbanism is incompatible with progressivism but… maybe urbanism is incompatible with his reactionary view?

    1. Very shocked to learn that’s what’s in latter part of the video.

      I watched his other videos about cities I don’t know much about and generally like the fun facts he pointed out, but I did notice that his praise about Atlanta Beltline, which is a matter I am relatively familiar with, didn’t quite align with how I believe urbanism should be. I didn’t suspect it too much because I’ve had that before and I think it might just be a cultural thing.

      I watched the beginning of his Seattle video but at some point before it even gets to that part, I decided that his takes about Seattle were too touristy and superficial for someone who actually lives here to watch.
      I guess I was right.

    2. It’s interesting that in his video he gives Seattle a really hard time over the riots but then gushes over Portland which has had a worse post George Floyd recovery than Seattle. Based on the statistics Portland had some actual non-trivial white flight 2021-2025 (portland city population shrinking but metro area was still growing).
      https://www.opb.org/article/2025/05/26/portland-population-grows-first-time-since-pandemic/
      https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/23102/portland/population

      Honestly to me it almost seemed like engagement bait or playing with the algorithm by throwing out as many right wing buzz words as possible

    3. Yeah the video itself was to me rather odd and offensive .

      The difference between a pedestrian setting and a car setting is that you see people, not cars. If things are unpleasant you will see them easier and for a longer time leild (not a brief second)..

      And density is going to concentrate more people closer together. So there may be just as many destitute drug users proportionally in rural West Virginia but they’re not as concentrated in one’s field of vision.

      Finally I was surprised that Seattle’s recent preponderance of block architecture didn’t offend him.

      I actually felt like he had this ideal urban setting like a wealthy Manhattan neighborhood in his head, and he thinks everywhere else is supposed to be measured against hat.

      Sure there are urban places where crowds and their environment look manicured. Most of them are “gated”!literally or figuratively.

    4. His attitude may have evolved over time. The Seattle video was 7 months ago. The Portland video was 1 month ago.

      In the Seattle video’s comments, in the 6th comment (the one with 21 replies), one of the replies is by him. So that gives another look where he tried to explain himself after the video and the criticism. It’s not much different from his statements in the video, but he steps back a little bit and looks at more cities and factors. The comment was soon after the video.

    5. Fare-free transit is a trivial thing – it is clearly better for riders, as fares are unambiguously regressive and limit ridership. The question is if transit agencies can manage it from a fiscal standpoint, to which the answer is more or less “no” for large agencies with budget issues. Intercity Transit has successfully (in my view) implemented fare-free transit, and Island Transit has been fare-free since it’s inception.

      I am not certain there is any research to back up that fares prevent any anti-social behavior on transit, and it feels like base speculation to me to imply that it does. Fares are just one aspect of the entire social structure surrounding transit, and I’m of the opinion that the implication that transit is for poor people is much more damaging to ridership potential in the long term than issues relating more narrowly to if nominal fares prevent “bad” ridership. To this end, my view is that transit should be provided as a public service, accessible to all who conform within the agencies stated ridership policies. Exclusion of people who violate those policies is not strictly related to fares, fares are just one way to conceptualize that sort of exclusion – and one that has undertones that I’m not really comfortable supporting. There are lots of people who cannot afford even reduced fares in Seattle, but they also have places they need to go. Transit as a public service, with no or low fares, is more effective at creating a long-term base of loyal riders than anything else, and that should be the goal. Fares may be needed now to adequately fund service, but we should develop long-term plans to freeze or reduce them still.

      “Progressive” has a nebulous meaning. But in terms of tax and finance policy, a progressive policy is one that has some kind of re-distributive tint. A progressive option shifts the cost burden from the poor to the rich, while a regressive one does the opposite. Sales taxes are regressive because there are basic needs that everyone needs, and non-discretionary spending makes up more of poor household’s spending than it does for rich ones. Fares are similar, where it’s a higher relative burden for a poor household than a rich one. Fare free transit in this sense in Seattle could be conceived of as regressive, depending on if you consider sales taxes or fares to be more or less regressive (I think fares are more regressive, but I’m not really sure). But in general, a progressive fare policy would be difficult to implement since it would have to scale with income or wealth in some way. It’d probably be simplest to levy a progressive income or property tax, use that to fund transit, and charge no fare.

      If we take high transit ridership as a measure of a good, urbanism aligned city, and we accept that fares reduce transit ridership (assuming equal funding/service levels), then we should accept that fare free transit is good urbanism aligned policy in a vacuum. Of course, that’s a lot of caveats, and being cautious on this is fine. Metro needs to be fiscally solvent before we consider fare-free, and I’d rather organize around that immediate need than consider what would be “truly” ideal.

      1. @blumdrew

        I’m not sure fares are cleanly regressive. Maybe in a truly ideal scenario transit could be fully funded via something like property or income taxes, but I don’t know that that’s politically possible. In Seattle, a huge chunk of Metro’s fare revenue is paid for by company ORCA cards, and eliminating fares would also eliminate a significant chunk of service funded by that. ORCA has a reduced fare program (LIFT) as well as a fully paid for program (an annual pass at no cost). To my mind that is basically the ideal system, given that we cannot fully fund transit via other means.

        On antisocial behavior on transit, I don’t know of any research, but the large reductions in disorder on transit in NYC (back in the 90s) as well as in SF (right now) have been attributed to increased fare enforcement. Of course there were and are larger societal factors there that likely contributed to the improvement in rider experience, but in any case if there are fares, I believe payment should be enforced to a reasonable extent.

        I also want to add that public disorder is incredibly inequitable. You can see that in Seattle: poorer and more diverse neighborhoods like Little Saigon deal with much more public disorder than richer and less diverse one. A personal anecdote: a friend of mine (female and a non-driver) moved from Rainier to LQA during COVID because she no longer felt safe riding the 7. Once again there were larger societal factors there, but (as always) poorer and more diverse routes like the 7 were disproportionately impacted.

        What’s the answer to that? I don’t really know, but improved fare enforcement seems reasonable to me, and I’d rather see that as a first step rather than additional Metro policing.

        1. Jd,

          Those are interesting points, particularly around the role of businesses paying fares. But I think on that front tying transit access to employment isn’t great policy for workers, even if it’s a pretty good system in a comparative sense.

          The point I want to make around safety is that increasing security does not need to be tied to fare enforcement. The fact that improvements in safety are attributed to fare enforcement doesn’t mean that it’s the fares themselves that contribute meaningfully to the safety improvement.

          And I don’t disagree with the issues of safety falling more on poorer riders, but wouldn’t use the word “regressive” to describe it. It’s just bad and should be addressed by more proactive policies region wide and from Metro.

          On the final note, what’s the real difference between a safety officer and a fare inspector? I feel like they seem like the same folks to me.

        2. The employer passes are a commute-reduction strategy for large institutions. The point is those institutions generate tens of thousands of trips to one campus. You either flood the area with transit and cheap fares that people will use by default — or you need acres of parking spaces and a dozen lanes of expressways and stroads for all the cars, which would destroy the area. It started with UW and the U-Pass, and spread to Microsoft and all the colleges and other large employers, and then more employers.

    6. “Fare-free transit is a trivial thing – it is clearly better for riders, as fares are unambiguously regressive and limit ridership. The question is if transit agencies can manage it from a fiscal standpoint, to which the answer is more or less “no” for large agencies with budget issues. Intercity Transit has successfully (in my view) implemented fare-free transit, and Island Transit has been fare-free since it’s inception.”

      Free fares is ideal in a perfect society. A city has a basic need for its residents to be able to get to their jobs, errands, social activities, medical appointments, and health-enhancing recreation. It also needs to attract tourists and get them to the tourist sites and hotels. The most efficient way to do this is with mass transit. Have ubiquidous frequent transit to everywhere with no fares. And also have land use so that people can do as many of their trips as possible on foot within their home neighborhood. When people can get to all their desired jobs and clubs and recreation with little friction, they maximize the economy and tax revenue and take care of their own health needs, so everybody is wealthier and more satisfied and there’s minimum stress and social tensions.

      But the US has unaddressed social problems. There’s a strong inequality and us-vs-them attitude. Rising housing prices create homelessness. Limited access to mental-health services and healthcare. Financial insecurity creates chronic stresses and leaves people frustrated and angry. Then the “haves” come and tell the “have-nots” that their suffering is their own fault due to not being brilliant or having the wrong skin color or politics. This creates a volatile cauldron of social problems that are far larger than transit but spill over into transit.

      “I am not certain there is any research to back up that fares prevent any anti-social behavior on transit, and it feels like base speculation to me to imply that it does.”

      Recent studies and agency policy changes have shown this. I don’t have the numbers but I’ve seen repeated references. A nominal fare and credible enforcement is a minor deterrent that keeps some of the misbehaving and “just roaming around” off transit. The fact that it’s not there means it doesn’t accumulate and grow as much.

      In societies like Finland, Scandinavia, Estonia, these societal problems don’t exist at nearly the same scale because the government has cradle-to-grave support and focuses on benefitting all its citizens, not on neglecting or harming some citizens because others have a spite against them. So the underlying problems aren’t there to manifest themselves on buses and trains. But the US isn’t like that: we have these problems, and the powers that be refuse to fix them, so they fester for decades, and as a result we need to protect our transit vehicles a little bit with fares. Ideally we would solve all the problems at once and then fares wouldn’t be needed, but that requires higher-level decision measures to do it and get out of the way, so we can’t right now. So the next best thing is fares, and robust fare-discount programs for lower-income people.

      Very small communities like Intercity Transit or Island Transit find that fare collection costs more than the revenue it can bring in, and they don’t have large concentrations of misbehaving individuals because they don’t have many people in the first place. That doesn’t apply to larger cities and counties like Metro-land.

    7. “There are lots of people who cannot afford even reduced fares in Seattle, but they also have places they need to go.”

      And they can get free-fare media from social-service providers. It used to be free bus tickets. Now it’s probably an ORCA thing. I’ve known people who’ve had only three dollars in their pocket at a time, and panhandling for a day brings in only like ten dollars. So it’s a real choice between one bus trip or food. And sometimes they don’t have enough cash for bus fare. That’s why we need to maximize discount-fare media distribution and outreach. The cities and nonprofits are trying to do what they can.

      There’s also an issue with visitors with little money, who are only here for a short time to look for a job or a situation or are just traveling. They may not eligible for the discount-fare media residents can get, or they don’t know where to go for it or don’t have time to go, or they’re here for the weekend and the places are closed on the weekend. The discount-fare program doesn’t address their needs. But we have to start somewhere, and the discount-fare program can at least address most people’s needs, and that’s better than nothing.

  12. “Although I think turning 150 into a Rapid Ride would be more useful than creating a Kent express. But that is far down the road for now.”

    RapidRide 150 is in Metro’s next tier of expansions after the I, J, K, and R. So Metro will probably start planning it in the late 2030s when the last of the others finish. That’s twenty-some years from now so it won’t help in the near term, but it is in process.

    The alternatives are mainly the current alignment or truncating it at Rainier Beach. The former would shift to 4th Ave S if Link displaces the SODO busway, and would include upgrading 4th. SDOT is already considering upgrading 4th anyway for the 131/132 and to fill in sidewalks and make it safer. So the two may coincide.

    Truncating at Rainier Beach would have the usual tradeoff of improving access to Link to southeast Seattle but increasing travel time to downtown. So that makes it less likely. But it’s still a live alternative.

  13. “I did notice that his praise about Atlanta Beltline, which is a matter I am relatively familiar with, didn’t quite align with how I believe urbanism should be”

    What’s the Atlanta Beltline? How urbanism-compatible is it? I’ve been to Atlanta twice and ridden MARTA between the airport, Midtown, and somewhere in the northeast (I think a long walk from Lindburgh Center station if I remember). So that’s what I know firsthand about Atlanta, other than when somebody took me to a woodland park in Elljay. Otherwise I’ve heard a lot about Atlanta’s sprawl beyond that, and suburban counties’ resistance to MARTA.

    1. The Atlanta Beltline is Atlanta’s version of the Burke Gilman trail or maybe parts of the ERC (“rail to trail”) but with a bit more width to do things in places. It encircles Downtown Atlanta about 2-3 miles out from Five Points.

    2. The belt line is a bike and pedestrian trail that goes almost all the way around the city. Much of it is on old railroad lines. The Carter Center and Presidential Library are probably the most famous things along it.

      There’s a lot of stuff along it or being built along it, including 5 story condo buildings with retail, restaurants, etc on the bottom floor. It doesn’t tend to run next to highways, and crosses them on bridges.

      So maybe something like the Burke Gilman, only through the core of places like Ballard, Fremont, Capitol Hill, and a few parks like Discovery and Washington Arboretum, only much better in its separation from road traffic while still also having buildings close enough to make it a thoroughfare.

      1. You could say Beltline is something like Burke Gilman trail. The most developed part of it is small stretch on the east side.
        I disliked it because I see it more like a real estate gig fronted with fake urbanism. It has very little impact to people live around it and for a long time it didn’t even have frequent bus line go to it.

        1. It depends on the section, but it’s not really that far from transit. I walked east to it from the Midtown MARTA station on about 15 minutes. Anything that close to downtown Atlanta is going to have a bunch of different bus routes crossing it.

          I walked south on it to the Carter Library.

          It may be mostly a real estate gig now, but the first step of making it so people use it is to have stuff near it for people go to. It seems reasonably well used, and having so few road traffic blockages is a huge benefit over the Burke-Gilman.

        2. “I walked east to it from the Midtown MARTA station on about 15 minutes.”

          Yeah true north end is closer to Midtown, but from North Avenue to Ponce City Market which was (maybe still is) hottest part of the Beltline, that’s 1.3 miles of walks with elevation. Red Bull literally did Soapbox there before. And I am pretty sure Atlanta’s walkshed is smaller than Seattle because of the weather and just how people are uncomfortable doing things without car. This also reminds me of another thing about Beltline. It used to have terrible accessibility. Between Ponce City Market and the 10th St ending point you went to, accessibility was terrible because the westside of the trail is a strip mall. This makes it more like a park rather than part of transportation network. At least one of the access from the eastside was a cul-de-sac fenced off until recent years. Most of other access south of North Ave was built when the new developments happened. In general, this trail doesn’t serve much of real transportation purpose like Burke-Gilman Trail does. It is just not what people would use going from point A to B. MARTA doesn’t seem to like it probably because it is not the project they invented, but that’s probably for the best because I don’t think that corridor will generate good transit ridership.

          “It may be mostly a real estate gig now, but the first step of making..”

          That I agree. Nobody did a paper in planning school just for a great real estate gig. I guess things went out of track when they tried to raise fund to do what they wanted to do originally.

    3. When I was in Atlanta I heard about the Carter Center and somebody recommended it, and I wondered whether it’s possible to take transit to it. I didn’t have time so I didn’t look into it further. But if I went to Atlanta again, that would be first on my list to try.

      (I’ve pretty much stopped traveling outside Pugetopolis due to multiple health issues that make that an ordeal, but theoretically I’ll be virtually there, just like I’d visit Spain someday now that I know four people who are from there or live there or both.)

      1. Carter Center was built on state DOT that was reserved for an unbuilt freeway interchange. It is not very accessible by transit without some walk but there are some decent trail connection in recent years.

        1. Bus route 51 is as close as transit gets, which is at the opposite end of its parking lot.

        2. “Bus route 51”

          That’s a recent development thanks to restructure just implemented less than a month ago. done by Jarrett Walker’s firm.
          51 used to end at North Avenue. The whole eastern section was added to replace a deleted Route 816 which ran every 45 minutes. When I was there, most MARTA routes were infrequent in a way that didn’t even run every 30 minutes and even infrequent trips got cancelled or ran 20-40 minutes behind schedule all the time.
          It is something people wouldn’t count on if they can ever afford a car except for those who luckily both live and work along heavy rail corridor.

    4. “suburban counties’ resistance to MARTA.”

      That’s partially MARTA fault in my opinion. The suburban counties were anti-transit historically, but they have turned less and less volatile to transit due to population growth and congestion.
      Gwinnett County on the northwestern side thrived by Interstate 85 and Cobb County on the northwestern side thrived by Interstate 75 both have county-run transit agency. They don’t have a lot of service coverage, but at least for what they run, they do an okay job and constantly fight chance for more funding and expansion. In my opinion, they ran better bus service than MARTA does, but MARTA is not the only one to blame. This agency receives zero state funding and heavy rail probably occupy a lot of its budget. The last great thing the region did for transit is to get MARTA heavy rail built.

      1. The populations of Cobb and Gwinnett were much smaller when MARTA voted on the sales tax by county in 1970. Cobb has grown from 196K in 1970 to over 800K today. Gwinnett has grown from 72K to over a million. Frankly, these counties were way too small to get rail in 1971. Keep in mind that Fulton and Dekalb both barely passed the MARTA sales tax in 1971.

        There have been more recent attempts to add counties. Clayton decided to join MARTA just a few years ago. Gwinnett said no again.

        I think it’s useful to mention that MARTA runs the local buses too. They don’t have an overlay rail service like we do here with ST.

    1. The Toronto “downtown core” is probably as large as Pioneer Square to N 85th Street, with density like the U-District or at least Ballard. So picturing something like the size of downtown Seattle and then a gap to the U-District and then suburbs beyond would be inaccurate.

      Canada has proven in multiple cities (Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa) that an overall level of more frequent transit reaching deep into the suburbs generates relatively high all-day ridership. Combined with a more pro-active attitude toward; e.g., highrises at most Skytrain stations, missing middle housing throughout, light rail with good station placement (Calgary), and support for frequent trips from everywhere to everywhere (Toronto), and planting new cities with dense downtowns and rapid transit from the beginning (downtown Surrey BC in the 1990s), ridership is consistently higher than comparable American cities, and sometimes three times higher (Calgary light rail), and even out to the exurbs (the White Rock US border in metro Vancouver).

Comments are closed.