Local News:

This is an Open Thread. Uncivil comments will be moderated.

83 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: Not-So-New-Kids”

  1. The new County “pass-through program” can be summed up in the phrase “Subarea-Equity for thee, but not for me!”

    [Yes, yes, I know “Sub-Area Equity” is specific to Sound Transit. However, this sounds like the small “cities” holding up Seattle to me.]

    1. Yeah, it’s a horrible proposal. Saying Seattle can just raise their own local funding in response is just saying that they believe Seattle should have to pay for their own stuff and everyone else’s too. It’s bad policy

    2. The most important purpose is to fund transportation infrastructure in the unincorporated areas where stuff is falling apart and not in the 39 cities.

      The cap on Seattle seems odd as its infrastructure is old and also falling apart.

      On the transit service side, Seattle still gets about 60 percent of Metro service.

      1. Jack, yes, the Metro service hours issue is real. However, as the article notes, Seattle raises 35-40 percent of the sales tax revenues in the County and has its own funding for “Seattle Transit Levy” hours.

        The Levy doesn’t pay for the full remainder of the difference in service hours, for sure. But there are large areas of Seattle where streets have such dense parking that cars “meeting” have to spot a slot a block in advance.

        Is there any place, other than Renton possibly, where that happens in any other King County municipality? Without frequent bus service on the nearby arterials, those areas of Seattle would have gridlock. There are no more places to park more cars for the people who ride the frequent buses today.

        The “cap” is just ‘Burbistas flexing their resentment muscles.

    3. It does sound particularly unfair especially this comes around the time Sound Transit board is waving idea of cutting Ballard Link for a similar reason.
      Certain parts of suburban King County are not exactly “poorer” than Seattle, they are just too small to raise fund for their own pet project. So that’s not exactly the same case as inequitable distribution of wealth or some sort that we need to mention equity. You want to raise some money that Seattle doesn’t get a scoop? Start a countywide tax zone excluding Seattle.

    4. There are two aspects to the proposal. The first is the notion of pass-through. The argument is fairly simple. If we are all supposed to chip in, then shouldn’t we fix all the roads in the county? To only focus on unincorporated areas puts an undo burden on cities to fix those other roads. It discourages areas from incorporating in the first place. One way to compensate is to give cities a chunk of the money to fix it themselves. That is bound to be controversial but it is quite reasonable.

      In contrast, putting a cap based on the percent of people within a city is completely bullshit. It doesn’t take much thinking to realize how ridiculous it is. Imagine Seattle breaks up into a dozen little cities. Everything else works the same. Yet suddenly Seattle gets all the money! What absurdity. You are punishing Seattle for simply being bigger. That is an attack on Seattle without any justification.

      1. Formulas to distribute local road money have been developed all over the country. For example, San Mateo County cities and county (for unincorporated areas) get sales tax money formulaically distributed based half on road miles and half on population.

        In typical Seattle fashion, proposals here don’t seriously consider multiple options. They tend to instead put one on the table with a take it or leave it attitude. It’s frustrating.

      2. To be contrarian, sales taxes are collected at point of sale, which overwhelmingly is within urban areas, mostly Seattle.

        The people who are paying these sales taxes in urban areas live everywhere, including unincorporated King County.

        So if you just take the sales taxes collected in Seattle and spend it in Seattle even though those who paid those taxes are often living outside of Seattle, that seems unfair as well.

        1. You mean like how ST sales taxes for everything bought at IKEA on the edge of Renton goes to build Issaquah Link someday — rather than anything in South King County?

        2. I’m a little dense, Al. You will need to be more clear. Sure there are examples in both directions (obviously). I think that was your point?

          But the denser areas generate more sales taxes per capita than the less dense areas, because that’s where the majority of the retail per capita is. Sure, I will sometimes grab a beer in Eatonville every decade or two, and they get credit for my big City Slicker .52c sales tax. But the far more common thing is for the dude from Eatonville to come blow $500 bucks at Costco at the Tacoma Mall and generate 50 bucks in sales tax for Tacoma.

        3. “I’m a little dense, Al. You will need to be more clear.”

          Renton is assigned to the ST East King subarea. Even so, most of its biggest retailers (both auto and non-auto) tend to be along Grady Way and well south of there. IKEA is on the City limits. It’s just across the street from Kent — but It’s revenues goes to East King capital projects like Issaquah Link. While it also goes to South Renton Stride, that cost is minimal compared to Issaquah Link. It’s an edge district issue.

        4. Why do we even have subareas?

          Every CITY that pays for ST should get their own subarea.

          The proportion that they are contributing to ST should be returned to them in the form of transit.

          For intercity transit, it can take a split funding for all the cities it covers based on the stations and utility for that city. Of course a station that can be used by neighboring cities (via a single bus transfer, or accessible P&R) should take a small piece of the pie from those neighboring cities as well.

        5. In the case of Renton, it has little to do with the East subarea.

          Very few from Renton except the Highlands would use East Link or any East subarea bus service. Most would go use Renton’s park and rides + bus stops. Even for the Highlands, the 105 would probably be used in more situations than the 111. The only exception is for those who need to use Link… 105+101+1 Line is probably more tedious than 111+2 Line in terms of the number of transfers.

          With Stride, certainly Renton can make use of routes like 556, 2 Line to Redmond, and S2 to Kirkland/Bothell… Stride is basically the first project where Renton is actually getting something.

          But still anyone from any subarea would use another subarea’s stations. That doesn’t mean they should be a part of it. I strongly think a new SE subarea should be introduced. The current S subarea has too much… The I-5 corridor and 167/405 corridors are quite distinct and deserve different setups of transportation.

          The E subarea is fine because there’s nothing going on in the NE except maybe Woodinville (such a tiny city it’s literally smaller in population than Fairwood which the 102 serves). Woodinville is getting a new promised peak hour route to Bellevue anyways (while nobody down south has gotten a promise like that).

          In fact SE King (Renton, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Covington, and Maple Valley) has so many people even more than Federal Way and Tacoma combined. The fact we get practically nothing for transit except the Sounder is a joke.. the Sounder is great too but as I’ve mentioned earlier the utility drops significantly for Renton and the parts of Kent and East Hill north of the station towards IKEA. Renton is basically taking the biggest middle finger from all our transit agencies despite having such a substantial population.

        6. “Why do we even have subareas?”

          Because the cities outside Seattle insisted on it.

  2. The Renton article is dumb. Pavone should fight for expanded Metro service to connect to the station, and smaller surface P&R lots in surrounding communities. Garages are no good.

    These idiots sure like parking but don’t actually want transit. Renton still needs a light rail spur merging at Rainier Valley, a bus way to accommodate Stride (until 405 Caltrain style rail is built), and MANY local but direct bus routes feeding into the new TC from the south and east of Renton.

    1. ST should shift from massive P&R garages at every station to building smaller permit surface lots with solar panels covering each spot.

      Then they should team with King County Metro to build smaller P&Rs in nearby suburb communities with a feeder bus connecting it to the main TC, and possibly through routing to Seattle/Bellevue if it makes sense.

    2. And zero word about the light rail spine getting destroyed.

      SODO will completely be cut off from Capitol Hill and the UW. And no more bus way.

      Even park and riders from the south won’t get a one seat trip anymore.

      The DSTT2 trash has to go. If they deleted that, they could fund literally everything in ST3 except West Seattle. Ballard includes all promised stations (SLU included). West Seattle gets an open BRT. Everything else gets completed on time.

      And light rail spine stays relatively connected.

      Tacoma – Northgate (1 Line)
      Redmond – Ballard (2 Line) or. Lynnwood, make Ballard a stub to Westlake
      SeaTac – Everett (3 Line)
      Issaquah – S Kirkland (4 Line), with expansion to UW/Ballard in the future

      That is still 3 lines in the DSTT though, but I’m sure they can get creative to make this work.

      1. I’m sure they can get creative to make this work.

        ST has no interest in being creative. That is one of their big problems. The other is that they have no interest in cost-effectiveness. The two go together. A sensible agency would notice that some of the projects are very expensive and not very useful. They would then look at creative alternatives. But with ST there is none of that. All they do is remove pieces of what they wanted to build, thereby reducing the value of the projects even further.

        1. The ST3 fiscal crisis might have been an opportunity for positive change but has not yet been.

        2. [ST has] no interest in cost-effectiveness.

          That’s the money quote. Nothing beyond is relevant.

      2. SODO will not be cut off from Capitol Hill and the UW, the West Seattle line will run from there to those destinations. Everywhere south will loose a one seat ride, but how much of an issue that is depends on how bad the transfer is at SODO. Of course, it’s ST so we can’t dream of the global norm of a cross platform transfer (which would be relatively easy to achieve for the expected transfer patterns here), but maybe we can hope for a less-bad option still.

        1. It won’t even be possible to provide a mix and match scenario for 1 and 3 lines in SODO. Rather than just West Seattle — Everett and Tacoma dome – SLU at 10 minutes we could have West Seattle — Everett, West Seattle — Ballard, Tacoma Dome — SLU and Tacoma Dome – Everett at 20 minutes. If someone doesn’t want to wait, that rider would have the option of taking an earlier train and transferring (like what has been planned now for every rider rather than every other rider). That’s because the planned track configurations will require hopping across two tracks and freezing the entire operation of both lines to do it.

        2. ST could still probably change the track configurations and station platform layouts if they wanted — even after the EIS. They just won’t look into it.

        3. Al, of course they can. Those have essentially no “environmental impact”. If anything they’d increase ridership by opening new single-seat trip options.

        4. Everywhere south will loose a one seat ride, but how much of an issue that is depends on how bad the transfer is at SODO.

          Sure. A lot depends on the timing. Each line runs every 8 to 10 minutes. A trip from the UW to Beacon Hill would require waiting twice — first for the train to West Seattle and then for the train to Beacon Hill. An untimed trip has an average wait time of half the headways. If both the initial walk to the platform and the transfer are untimed, that means an *average* wait time of 8 to 10 minutes along with the time spent actually getting to and from the platforms in SoDo (as well as to the initial platform and from the second platform). Obviously that would suck.

          If SoDo is designed as Al suggests (https://seattletransitblog.com/2025/01/27/improving-sodo-station-with-cross-platform-transfers/) then things are much better. Not only is the transfer time minimal (you just walk across a center platform) but the trains can more easily be timed. They can both arrive at the platform at the same time (or one can wait for the other). Or can easily favor one transfer over the other (e. g. UW to Beacon Hill but not West Seattle to Ballard). Thus the southbound Ballard-Tacoma train can arrive a minute after the Everett-West Seattle train. But all of that gets a lot harder when the transfer itself is time consuming. Yet that is precisely what they have planned! We have to allow enough for the transfer itself, which can vary. We should allow enough time for someone to get out of the train, roll their luggage to the elevator, wait for the elevator, take it to the mezzanine and then do it all over again to get to the other platform. Oh, and that all assumes a fairly consistent, reliable system that is timed appropriately. Link has been inconsistent in the past and things are more likely to get worse as the line extends miles and miles. This not only increases the likelihood of delays but it pushes up maintenance costs (that could otherwise go into advance systems that would improve timing). My guess is the transfer will be random. That means an average wait of 8 to 10 minutes for a trip like UW to Beacon Hill.

          It is worth mentioning that Sound Transit has no money! The idea that ST will suddenly “see the light” and create cross platform transfers is a big ask for an agency that is cutting stations. No one is sure how much worse the system will be but some aspects of it will clearly be worse.

          This is unprecedented. Link has never made light rail trips worse. East Link now goes across the lake and yet the train from the UW to Rainier Valley runs just fine. Some aspects of Link have gotten better. I’ve yet to take it to the East Side but the train is more frequent for trips within the north end. Great! But this is the opposite. Things will get worse for thousands of existing Link riders. The crazy part is, we are willing to spend a fortune trying to avoid making things worse. The second tunnel is based on fear of crowding and delays. Maybe we wouldn’t be able to run enough trains to Lynnwood because we are also running trains to Ballard in the same tunnel. Fair enough. Yet this is not a hypothetical degradation based on futuristic ridership — it is a clear degradation that would occur the day it opens.

        5. “Not only is the transfer time minimal (you just walk across a center platform) but the trains can more easily be timed. They can both arrive at the platform at the same time (or one can wait for the other). Or can easily favor one transfer over the other (e. g. UW to Beacon Hill but not West Seattle to Ballard). Thus the southbound Ballard-Tacoma train can arrive a minute after the Everett-West Seattle train. But all of that gets a lot harder when the transfer itself is time consuming. Yet that is precisely what they have planned!”

          Thanks for this important point, Ross! Cross-platform transfers can usually offer scheduled transfers! That’s how BART operates in Oakland.

          A single level change can even allow for timed transfers. The trains just need to hold the doors open a bit longer.

          That strategy doesn’t work for two level changes — like what is currently planned at SODO. Changing multiple levels is really really awful for many reasons including this one.

        6. “Each line runs every 8 to 10 minutes.”

          They will run every 6 minutes by then.

        7. They will run every 6 minutes by then.

          Sure, and they will build everything in ST3 as well. I’m really looking forward to the money for RapidRide C and D.

          Seriously though, plans are great. Implementing plans are a different story. The idea that they would trains every 6 minutes throughout the day is a huge stretch given their situation. Ridership per mile is going down. The length of a line is a proxy for the cost. Thus the costs per rider are rising. The system is also aging. There are miles and miles of track that are now almost twenty years old. Now you want to spend money increasing the wear and tear on the system just to give riders a better experience?

          ST has never focused on better frequency as a goal by itself. It has always been about capacity. Once they started running bigger trains they stopped running trains every 6 minutes. Even now it wouldn’t cost much to just run the trains every 8 minutes all day long. They do it during peak but that is only because they are worried about crowding. They are also reluctant to turn back trains. They do it, but sparingly. There are no plans to turn back south of SoDo. It is pretty hard to imagine ST will be running trains to Tacoma every six minutes. Without additional crowding there is no push for increased frequency. In twenty years I expect the trains to run just as often as they do now. (Unless, of course they go with the Kubly/Reed plan, in which case those trains could run a lot more often.)

        8. “ST has never focused on better frequency as a goal by itself.” Do you not read the service planning documents? ST3 includes an expanded fleet and corresponding OMFs.

          “Without additional crowding there is no push for increased frequency.” Right – and there will be crowding. There is crowding today. Ross, sometimes I think you evaluate ST3 built out in 2040 but with 2020 population and density. Even if crowding is only in the core, ST will respond with higher frequency across the network.

        9. As several of you know, the travel time halfway point between CID and Tacoma Dome is kDM. Not SeaTac but KDM. There’s a reason the area was known as Midway.

          So a crowded train under Beacon Hill will then have only a handful if riders for half the trip.

          This is thé worst of both worlds — overcrowded yet unproductive.

          At some point , there will be an operational reckoning because of the operating budget. The current Board and staff wave the issue off now — but the train loads are so strikingly different for vast stretches of the long line . That it’s going to emerge.

          The sane issue exists for the planned 3 Line as the halfway time point between Westlake and Downtown Everett is Alderwood.

          Unless automation saves the day, there will someday be short-turning trains. The imbalances are just too wide to not impact the service frequency in the future.

        10. Ross,

          My broader point is that with an expanding network, we can’t expect to have a one seat ride everywhere. I think the choice to split the current 1 Line is weird and bad in part because it messes with existing people’s lives for poorly articulated reasons, but having transfers is a positive in general. The issue is the lack of well-designed transfers, not that people will have to transfer at all.

        11. The issue is the south-to-north axis surely has more riders than south-to-Ballard would.

        12. There. Is. No. Reason. For. Four. Tracks. At. SoDo. Station.

          There will be, at most, eighteen trains per hour (Line 1 twelve, Line 3 six) in each direction. Even if you assume DSTT2 gets built, both lines can run on the existing tracks.

          Yes, it would make a huge difference if the northbound track were moved ten or twelve feet east in the station, to allow for a center platform to ease “reversing” transfers for rides between the RV and West Seattle, but that would be peanuts compared to the Sky Castle they propose to build there.

          Yes yes, it’s the old guy howling at the moon. “ST will never do what you say!” Well maybe that is because everyone wants to be the bus driver here instead of producing an itemized list of the best ideas from everyone.

          I’ve written the tech stuff about how to make ylthis work, and the only person who replies is Al.

          If you want to know how it works, find my writings on it, at least three times in the last month.

          Share the damn tracks! It’ll save a billion give or take and preserve the busway.

        13. Right – and there will be crowding. There is crowding today.

          I see no evidence of consistent crowding within the system. ST used to release report showing which trains were crowded (and there were very few). Now they don’t even bother. There was some crowding when Lynnwood Link was added before East Link, but they ran a handful of express buses and the problem went away. Now there is no talk at all of crowding.

          So where will the crowding come from? Increased rush-hour traffic? That seems highly unlikely. The long-term trend is less peak commuting. We had a big drop in peak commuting and then a rebound but we came out of the pandemic with less office commuting. Despite solid business recovery, local office space is at depression levels. This is not a temporary downturn but a long term trend (“hybrid work patterns become more established”).

          Link expansion will have a minimal impact on crowding. East Link is done. Issaquah/Kirkland Link (should it be built) won’t help riders get across the lake. Link expansion to the south will be largely irrelevant. Sounder is faster than Link. To their credit, ST has already shown that they will run express buses if the buses save a significant amount of time. This means you won’t see a lot of people taking Link from Tacoma to Seattle — they will take Link from Tacoma to the airport, Highline or south Seattle. Lynnwood Link has reached the point of diminishing returns. Any expansion to the north will simply shift where riders board in the morning (and alight in the evening). It may be convenient for a lot of riders to drive to Ash Way or Mariner instead of Lynnwood but they are taking the train right now anyway. Just like Tacoma, the bus will be faster from Everett to Lynnwood than the train. It may save Boeing workers some time with their commute but it won’t impact the areas that are most crowded.

          A lot of the plans assumed very high peak ridership to downtown. Lynnwood Link was supposed to have “47,000 to 55,000 daily riders by 2026“. That just isn’t happening. In 2015 they thought the four stations would get 63,000 – 74,000 each weekday in 2035. I don’t think that will happen either. The four Lynnwood Link stations were getting around 10,000 riders a day before ST stopped counting riders. My guess is that has gone up a little (since they are running the trains twice as often) but it is nowhere near the 50,000 mark they expected by now. There just won’t be that much crowding. As result, Link will not increase frequency on the trains.

          Oh, and running trains every six minutes down Rainier Valley is not trivial. In the past the city has been concerned about the impact on traffic. That is why ST stopped, the first chance it got. Traffic is a minor concern for Wilson (as it was for Harrell) but not if it impacts the buses. One of the few good things to come from West Seattle Link is the Metro 50 can then run express from West Seattle to Beacon Hill. It is likely it will run a lot more often (with or without West Seattle Link). Even if ST can afford to run the trains more often (and more consistently) the city may discourage it. This wouldn’t be an issue if ST decided to bury Link in Rainier Valley but with all this money going on other projects, that just won’t happen. Hell, they won’t even add Graham Street Station — the most cost effective project left in ST3.

        14. My broader point is that with an expanding network, we can’t expect to have a one seat ride everywhere.

          Sure. But my point is the majority of riders going through downtown will be worse off. This includes a lot of existing riders. The line configuration is poor. Way more people will board on the existing line than either addition. This is true to the north as well as the south. It is also true when it comes to trip pairs (involving a north and south section). So not only do you have a degradation for some exiting riders, the line configuration is poor.

          This would not be true if they simply paired West Seattle with Ballard. No one would be worse off and the relatively small ridership from Ballard and West Seattle would be paired.

          Another alternative would be to pair the East Side with Ballard. This is good from a geographic standpoint. Once you get north of Capitol Hill, East Link loses riders to the bus. That doesn’t happen with the stations to the west. So while this would mean a degradation for some riders, it would make sense in the long run.

          Basically ST picked the worst possible combination which means that a lot of riders will suddenly be worse off and the overall system will be weaker than it should be. Throw in transfers that will likely be poor and you’ve got a poorly designed system. This is nothing new. Just look at the First Hill Station. History is repeating itself. Remember, we were promised “world class transfers”* when they decided on this configuration. Now, of course, money is tight. We can’t afford to build anything of that nature. Turns out it wasn’t as easy as expected. Golly gee, what a surprise.

          *The “world class transfers” quote was from this excellent article by Zach Shaner: https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/05/ballard-to-tacoma-sound-transit-looks-to-split-the-spine/. I’ll just quote the relevant piece:

          Sound Transit’s Ric Ilgenfritz walked the Board through this idea, and it was clear from the presentation that Sound Transit prefers this concept to a standalone Ballard-West Seattle line. … Transfers would be world class at both Westlake and IDS, both contained within their respective stations.

          This clearly won’t be the case. We can’t even get them to make transfers world class at SoDo, despite the platforms being entirely on the ground.

        15. “running trains every six minutes down Rainier Valley is not trivial. In the past the city has been concerned about the impact on traffic. That is why ST stopped, the first chance it got.”

          SDOT agreed to 6 minutes long-term a few years ago and it was incorporated into the ST3 plan. SDOT has even shown some willingness for 5 minutes. How SDOT felt in the mid 2010s and how it feels now are not necessarily the same thing.

          The 6-minute peak frequency in the 2010s was always marketed as temporary, to expedite a train-availability gap between the end of the Ride Free Area in 2012 and the arrival of all the U-Link and Northgate Link trains, amidst growing ridership. ST decided to fill that gap with more-frequent trains instead of longer trains. I don’t know how that works out mathematically but that’s ST’s problem. As soon as ST didn’t need the frequency anymore for logistics, it got rid of it.

          This time it’s different because it’s part of the ST3 plan. The same board decided to split the spine and to have 6-minute service in ST3. What grounds are there to say it will fulfill one and not the other? Just your speculation.

          There may be off-peak turnbacks at Lynnwood or Federal Way when ST gets around to finalizing the lines. That would lead to a net result of Tacoma 12 minutes (one line), Ash Way 6 minutes (if the 2 Line turns back at Mariner instead of Lynnwood). That’s a secondary issue (although I’d like it to be 10). But the idea that there won’t be 6 minutes in Rainier Valley (one line) and 3 minutes U-District (two lines) seems like too much speculation.

      3. Oh boy I sure can’t wait for 20 minute frequencies like BART after cramming all the lines through one tunnel, sounds great!

    3. I can see why they cry for NE 44th park and ride, but I find it hard to believe existing South Renton P&R will not be enough for Renton when S1 open.
      City of Renton could totally lease something near NE 44th as park and ride site for interim period, but perhaps sending this Op-Ed to Seattle Times cost much less.

    1. It looks like the 908 is taking a huge detour to do a grand tour of Bothell, only to serve one single stop, Bothell P&R. What was their reasoning for not just taking the ramp to 405, like the old 424 did? The bus can still stop at the new 522/405 transit center when the construction is finished, but subjecting a bus load of people to such a time consuming detour to serve one stop seems really bad.

      1. Imo, Bothell P&R and UWB/CC bus loop should close once Bothell/Woodinville TC opens. I’m very confused why CT decided to start the 908 on a non-major service change month rather than starting it in March or August. I’m starting to wonder whether CT has swapped their major service change months as in March there weren’t much changes.

        At least Monroe and Snohomish will finally get a connection to Bothell! The 908 should run all-day though I get it they don’t have the money right now. If they were to abandon an all-day 905 for an all-day 908 that would be okay.

  4. So this article got posted yesterday in the DJT:

    https://www.djc.com/news/co/12175936.html

    “West Seattle Link RFQ could drop early next month
    Sound Transit’s advance notice…”

    In other words, ST is already declaring that West Seattle Link will be funded. The Board debate appears to be a sham.

    1. What board debate? Ever since Avalon was cut every communication I’ve seen from ST board members has been on-board with it.

      1. There must be debate behind the scenes. The BLE includes the DSTT2 and the Ballard line between Westlake and NW Market Street.

        If the amended system plan did not include the DSTT2, it would be like Alexander cutting the Gordian knot; the DSTT2 billions could fund a great automated Ballard stub line, an improved DSST1, and restore funds to the outer subareas. The network would be better everywhere. Win-win-win.

        If the only cost is that the WSLE project cannot begin as quickly because the system plan is not adopted by May 28, that seems acceptable. Does ST really think operating the WSLE as a SODO shuttle for several years is not silly? Or that the Trump 2.0 FTA was granting blue Seattle any funds? The WSLE is rated medium by the FTA; it is meh; in its horizon year 2040, it is forecast to attract the same number of weekday boardings as the Metro fall 2018 radial routes did.

        Since 2016, the network has already been improved: H line in 2023; deep bore in 2019; south end pathway in 2020; South Lander Street overcrossing in 2020. Restructure now. The WSLE EIS ES has a passage that they assume the bus travel times between the Alaska Junction and Westlake would degrade by several minutes. It need not be so; the pathways of lines C and H are controlled by friendly agencies: WSDOT, SDOT, and Metro. The travel times could be maintained and even improved.

        1. It looks like Dan Strauss will be proposing an amendment to defer DSTT2 in favor of a “Ballard Starter Line from Westlake to Ballard,” per an email his office sent out yesterday. At the same time, there is no mention of automation technology or delaying WSLE, and he maintains that the second DSTT2 should still be built, eventually. I’m curious as to folks’ thoughts on this amendment. Seems like a step in the right direction and one that could potentially allow further improvements in the future.

        2. It’s a good idea. But they still need to solve WSLE and save the SODO busway.

        3. I think an excellent option we can consider:

          1. Build Westlake to Ballard as a stub. Ideally automated but just being able to build this would be nice.

          2. WSLE as a stub to SODO with a design that accommodates expansion to DSTT2 later.

          3. Lynnwood to Tacoma one seat
          Everett to Redmond one seat
          Issaquah to S Kirkland one seat

          That keeps most trips within 2 seats, and almost all essential trips in 1 seat. Only Everett loses out on a one seat trip to the airport.

          .. if those trips are too long, I would do this instead-
          1. Tacoma to Northgate
          2. Redmond to Lynnwood
          3. Everett to UW (future extension to West Seattle once DSTT2 opens)

          This is a bit disadvantageous to those north of Northgate, but they will need to wait until DSTT2. And I think preserving Northgate to the airport will be valuable.

          Design ALL projects for future automation and merging with the existing spine.

          Deferring DSTT2 will probably allow ST to keep money to do all the projects they wanted.

  5. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2026/05/washington-states-budget-has-been-shrinking-not-growing-despite-statements-to-the-contrary-by-former-elected-officials.html
    Titled “Washington State’s budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials”

    It seems like there really is a lot more slack in the state budget than one might expect. Particularly I wonder if intercity rail (Cascades) could tap into that at all.

    1. The slack in the state budget (relative to potential revenue) is a policy choice, and to some extent the slack is greatest in local governments who have been hampered by the 1% property tax debacle. Of course, the state has missed out on a lot of potential revenue through bone-headed own goals too, but to tap into any of that will require quite a lot of policy work.

      If we are serious about making intercity rail better, then finding ways to get sustainable and permanent funding for both capital and operations of Amtrak Cascades should be a priority. I think it would be interesting to see an analogue to a PTBA for intercity transit that could handle bus and rail funding, that way we could avoid some of the issues relating to places not near Seattle feeling frustrated about general fund type dollars going to benefit a service they can’t or don’t use.

  6. I have lost most hope at this point. I cry a bit every time I visit Vancouver and experience TransLink. While not perfect – they are leaps and bounds ahead of ST in planning and implementation of bus, train and transit oriented development goals.

    I get tired of seeing us aim for low hanging fruit (ie. WSLE) when more urgent issues exist (Ballard/SLU) and can be solved if we get CREATIVE (automation, truncation solutions that make sense). Unfortunately – ST is allergic to creativity in solutions and would rather push forward with flawed plans simply due to inertia…

    1. I share your frustration!

      I wouldn’t call it just “inertia”. There’s a very large number of lobbying interests at work here. Engineering and construction companies want contracts, and fund pseudo-public interest groups like Transportation Choices Coalition to further projects along. Real estate investors see ST as a strategy to buy the land that they don’t want to be on the hook for redeveloping. That’s on top of property owners that long fought anything above ground next to or near their property. They all help local candidates run for office, too — and get to bend their ear and dazzle them with campaign donations.

      Where there are billions being spent, there are going to be entities whose primary objective is to get their piece of the pie! That’s just the way that capitalism works with government funds.

      This is why using performance measures are most important to public decision-making when it comes to spending funds. And the way that performance measures have been summarily ignored since ST3 got created should be a cause of grave accountability concern. The culture of outright denial about the importance of performance measures has been so ingrained into the ST Board long enough now that they think it’s normal. I think it’s at the core of so many transit advocates expressing displeasure with the Enterprise Initiative.

      As long as ST keeps spinning ST3 as “someday we will build our dream rail system” they get to ignore questions about its actual value added for riders about not being productive nor faster. And that’s the message that they want to carry for at least 30 more years.

    2. It is sad… We already threw away Forward Thrust.

      All this money could be going towards bus service, regional rail express and BRT now. The subway and light rail network should have already been built.

      1. Forward Thrust vote was in 1968. I-5 reversible lanes opened in 1967. I-5 was basically opened in the few years before the Forward Thrust vote. I-405 fully opened after the vote in 1971 so voters at the time were anticipating it.

        In 1970, the entire King County population was less than half of what it is today (1.1M in 1970 Census).

        I’m not excusing that decision. I’m merely reflecting on the historical context related to other factors, especially the misguided belief that freeways solve everything.

        1. Except that “freeways” have continued to produce way more productive solutions to regional mobility than what a dysfunctional ST board has delivered at a stupid cost that has left ST essentially broke with no way to deliver anything close to what was promised.

    3. I agree 100%, Micheal.

      OK, 99%. I feel like a Knicks fan early in the fourth quarter last night. Things look bleak. But the Knicks rallied and Sound Transit could as well. Maybe Sound Transit will come to their senses at the last moment. It really wouldn’t take much. Just go with the Kubly plan but start with Westlake to Smith Cove (the part that is least controversial). Don’t skip stations. Spend money improving the bus system for both West Seattle and Ballard.

      But if that doesn’t happen and they fail miserably (as expected) then transit advocates shift focus to the buses. Link expansion becomes largely irrelevant. Link is still valuable but it continues to only work for a small subset of trips, despite the enormous price tag. That means we have to find money to spend on buses while we waste money on railroad projects. We become increasingly jealous of our nearest urban neighbor (Vancouver).

      1. “The essential part of Link is running. The rest is less important.”

        By severing the spine and building in new multi-level transfers instead, they’re significantly damaging the current, essential part of Link in the future.

        It’s not only that the new projects don’t add much value, it’s that they’ll end up making trips take more time and effort than we have available today!

        ST3 completion actually would make transit travel significantly worse for lots of existing riders .

  7. Link is suspended between U-District and Northgate now. My train waited a while at U-District and then told everybody to get off.

  9. How is Wilson’s term performing? I’m glad for the Denny Way bus lanes, the restoration of the Lake Washington Blvd car-free plan, and the city’s rededication to density. I wish she were more enlightened on ST3 rather than just “build the damn trains”.

    1. Agreed. She has bought into the West Seattle myth hook, line and sinker. Perhaps she is more focused on the jobs the work creates than the cost effectiveness of the transit system. Or maybe she is stuck in a bubble and doesn’t have time to seek out cynics. You would think she would at least give the Kubly/Reed plan some consideration but maybe she doesn’t want to rock the boat. She regrets rocking the boat with some of her remarks about Schultz (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/a-politician-admits-a-mistake-never-happens-but-it-did-in-seattle/) so maybe she is just being really conservative. Just go with the flow and don’t question where it is leading.

      1. We need the motto of build the smart trains rather than build the damn trains. The fiscal gap is real and large. A transit policy advisor for Mayor Wilson is Alex Hudson; no surprise she would take the TCC line. There may still be much work behind the scenes.

    2. I am not a Seattle resident, but I think she’s doing a good job. Unfortunately, she has very little influence over Sound Transit. It’s the county executives’ show, and they have decided to cut Ballard.

  10. As long as dstt2 remains, i will consider st a failed effort and complete waste, but thats just me.

    1. There’s still the existing Link and ST Express. They’re a huge success and make it much easier to get around the region than if we hadn’t had them. Were you here before any of it started? I spent 10 years taking transit in high school, college, and my first jobs before the 550 started, 30 years before Link started, and 48 years before Crosslake started. Things are much better now, a larger cross-section of the population is taking transit, others are more willing to consider it, and Link can take on high-capacity needs like ballgames and protests and when highway lanes are blocked or closed.

      1. I moved here in 2001. Used to take the 511 every week. Oh wait thats gone..I used the 194 heavily. Oh sit that was a victim of link making over the tunnell. I sed the 255 a ton. Oh wait rhats a victim of link taking the tunnel. I used to take rhe 43 from downtown to uwmc several times a week. Another link casualty. And now they are insisting on plunging ahead with a crappy by design dstt2. So no, for me sound transit has not improved things really at allb7t it IS specific to my situation and needs.

      2. I won’t question your personal view, and I’m glad you acknowledge it’s your personal view. But from the perspective of the average person’s mobility options and transit best practices, ST2 Link and the ST Express network is clearly a major improvement. It brings Seattle into the group of similar-size cities with a metro circulator in its major trunk corridors. This holds true even if there are flaws in the alignment, station locations/number, and station details. It makes a major difference if you can take a feeder to a train in Shoreline, Bellevue-Redmond, or Rainier Beach and go to any Link station, with minimum 10-minute frequency and mostly grade-separated speed, compared to before Link.

        You extoll the 194, but while it was 8 minutes faster Westlake-SeaTac, Link is more frequent full-time, is immune to traffic jams that might make you miss your flight, and creates new one-seat rides to the airport from UW, Lynnwood, Capitol Hill, and southeast Seattle that never had a bus alternative: you had to transfer to a bus downtown. A bus that was less frequent, didn’t run after 9:30pm, maybe didn’t run on Sundays, and a downtown bus-transfer experience isn’t always wonderful.

        Link is better than the 511 from Lynnwood. I don’t remember how far north of Lynnwood it went: did it terminate at Ash Way or further north. From Ash Way you could say it’s a one-seat ride: that’s the only potential advantage I see in it. But I’d be glad to get out of traffic and the sight of an ugly depressing freeway all around you, and the inevitable traffic congestion. If the 511 went further north, well, are those areas big enough to justify a one-seat express bus to downtown Seattle?

        The 43 is not as directly related to Link. It’s more of a grid-route restructure. Jack has suggested replacing the 48 with the 43 and a “reverse 43” (23rd S to John Street and downtown). That would be another way to handle travel demand on 23rd. These issues aren’t fully related to whether Capitol Hill station exists or not; the issue is the prevailing trip patterns and needs. A lot of people in east Seattle need to get to Broadway for shopping and education because they don’t have those options in their neighborhood. At the same time some number of people want to go north-south on 23rd past John. So there’s a tradeoff there, and it has to be weighed re the grid (which favors the 48), and the vast majority of trip patterns and needs (which may favor turning on John).

  11. In my opinion, the 160 should be revised to be a more indirect local route serving more parts of Benson Hill and East Hill Meridian.

    The Rapid Ride Line I shouldn’t deviate to Valley Medical Center and stay on SR 515. It’s at least 5-10 mins lost and that area always gets clogged with traffic. Unless they’re planning a bus lane up the hill but I highly doubt they’re going to build that. Even with the improvements they’ll do it’s a big time loss for riders from Kent.

    A local bus route (a retained 160) can maintain service to Valley while also adding more areas to the service coverage. Since Rapid Ride I will be frequent, it will be easy to reliably connect to the local route as well as DART 906 (which should restored as a full time bus route between Fairwood and alternating to Southcenter / SeaTac station rather than Tukwila Station).

    In the long run, they really should add a route from Green River up to Renton Highlands (with a Rapid Ride I transfer somewhere in Kent). Running start high schoolers would definitely use that route throughout the day to get to community college, and it can also be used to connect to Route 111 from East Hill. Also since it would pass by 3 different high schools, it would be extremely useful for students as an alternative to a school bus for after school activities. I wish we had more school oriented routes down here like they’re doing up in Bellevue and Lake Washington SD. The kids here need them.

    1. Totally agree about the 906.

      Regarding the 160/I, the ridership stats show Valley Medical is a stable all-day destination but not very great, and the other stops along the deviation are almost unused. So, I hadn’t considered removing the deviation, but it’s a point worth considering.

    2. At first I was also against the Valley Medical Center/Talbot Road detour. But medical centers are major destinations and job centers, especially when there’s only one in the subregion. You aren’t going to convince Metro or Renton to not detour to it, so it’s not worth trying. It’s also an equity issue for lower-income people without cars who need to go to the medical center from time to time, or work as a nurse there.

      Look at Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue, where Metro made two routes overlap to get 6 buses/hour to the hospitals and surrounding clinics. It’s the same kind of thing.

      1. That’s why I suggested an alternative local route that follows the 160, but serves more neighborhoods and deviations. The I can stick onto SR 515 to actually act as a rapid ride.

      2. The point is to have the most frequent and upgraded service to the medical center because it’s such an important destination, high-ridership, and people come to it from all areas and demographics. That’s the kind of thing RapidRide is intended to serve, that and the city/village centers.

        RapidRide is an all-stop replacement service for the existing route(s), not an overlay. The project has no budget to maintain a second parallel route. Metro can’t do it without taking service hours from other routes, which it won’t do because they’re all needed. You’ve said a lot about how Renton needs more bus service, and nothing about any routes being superfluous that can easily be eliminated.

        1. Better idea. Why not hop onto SR 167 after the medical center? Someone else pointed out the Talbot Rd ridership is extremely low. It’s not worth keeping.

  12. According to Pantograph, KCM is operating route 102/162 with 60 footers for all morning trips (including Rapid Ride coaches – this morning all eight 162 trips were using the red, RR livery articulated buses)… But entirely (or almost entirely) 40 footers in the afternoon. Seems like a weird choice if they wanted to be consistent. Do they somehow get more riders in the morning? It’s not fleet availability, because a lot of the buses they use in the morning are shown still sitting in the base according to Pantograph.

    I’ve also observed occasional Rapid Ride bus use on other routes (mostly peak hour) like 17, 56/57, 113, 212, 218, and 256. On the 256, they’ve used Sound Transit livery buses a couple times. Other than that I’ve seen them on the 124/125/271 and some other local Seattle routes.

    1. I’ve also noticed 162/150/177 operated on A Line’s DE60LFA has been frequent anomalies in recent months. It is such a treat for some spotters because typically you cannot see this model without going as south as TIBS.

      24/124 is run by RapidRide livery fleet from time to time. I believe it is the same reason 17X is run by RapidRide livery vehicle occasionally. But the difference is really just livery for some of the vehicles. They’ve painted a lot of regular Metro bus into RapidRide livery throughout the year.

      Among all regular 60 ft NFI buses Metro has (this excludes batch that was ordered specifically for RapidRide like those for G Line and DE60LFA in south King), I think the biggest difference is that some are 2-door suburban model while some are 3-door city model.
      Yes you never see RapidRide vehicle on 271. Bellevue/East Base doesn’t have that many articulated buses for Metro routes. RapidRide livery fleet seems to be exclusively used by B Line. The rest of the 2-door DE60LFR run 271, all sorts of peak routes, as well as Sound Transit routes occasionally.

    2. The DE60LFA is one of the nicer King County Metro buses. It was running on one of this morning’s 102 trips and it has been an anomaly in recent months on that route as well.

      Also again this morning all 8 trips on the 162 operated with RR buses. Pantograph has a bug that it cannot identify some of the vehicles 6270-6289 since they were previously numbered 8270-8289 (which Pantograph still believes is in the current fleet). I’ve asked them about fixing it but got no response.

      1. Stats for this past week:

        Vehicles 6000-6019
        2009 New Flyer DE60LFA
        King County Metro
        Artics
        Diesel-Electric Hybrid ⛽⚡

        A Line 362 trips (71%)
        F Line 134 trips (26%)
        162 14 trips (3%)
        102 2 trips (<1%)
        177 1 trip (<1%)

    3. “RapidRide livery fleet seems to be exclusively used by B Line. ”

      It’s used occasionally on the 212, 218, 256, and 271. But not quite as often as other routes from the South Base.

  13. City Erased is an exhibit at UW’s Gould Hall through May 29. It’s a reconstruction of what was displaced by I-5 construction. Each year students make 3-D models of more lost buildings to add to the collection.

  14. This video tracks the development of Montreal’s new automated rail line called the Réseau Express Metropolitain (REM).

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHqqA0onn0&ra=m

    The video discusses lots of organizational, public-private ownership and local government involvement steps. It also discusses the advantages of automated trains and related items like platform screen doors. All of this was done with an eye to cost control.

    It may have been posted before. But with the ST Board decision looming this week, it’s worth watching — and counting the issues that Montreal addressed and Seattle hasn’t.

  15. This roundup does a nice job of capturing how “small” transit updates still connect to much bigger system changes—especially the ongoing adjustments around Link expansion and how agencies are trying to balance operations, funding, and rider behavior. The comment section was also a reminder that some of the most interesting transit insights come from lived experience, not just official planning documents.

Comments are closed.