Service Alerts:

Local Headlines:

Further Afield:

Events:

This is an Open Thread.

82 Replies to “Midweek Roundup: dual disruption”

  1. Forgive the bump from one of last week’s threads… but I’m still really curious about this weekends disruption on the 2 Line.

    I understand there is a rail replacement planned in the DSTT, but any idea what the Crosslake “maintenance” issue could be? Seems odd to shut service for planned maintenance two months after opening?

    1. I don’t travel crosslake very often but I have heard some potential overhead wire issues at some segments. A train did get stuck on the eastbound approach to Mercer Island briefly a week or two ago. I’ve seen speculation that ST is pushing to get as much prep/maintenance as much possible ahead of the World Cup.

      1. “I’ve seen speculation that ST is pushing to get as much prep/maintenance as much possible ahead of the World Cup.”

        That’s why I think that Sound Transit is having the disruption very early after Crosslake opened so service isn’t disrupted when the World Cup runs. They might have planned it later but because of the latter they probably moved it sooner.

        1. Wish they would have done it last weekend when the Mariners weren’t in town.

    2. “I understand there is a rail replacement planned in the DSTT, but any idea what the Crosslake “maintenance” issue could be? Seems odd to shut service for planned maintenance two months after opening?”

      It’s planned maintenance, nothing that I would say “an issue” per ST’s website.

      Federal Way Link also got it’s first shutdown only two months after opening.

      Though I’m concerned why shuttle buses on the 2 Line only run from IDC to South Bellevue when they should run from Capitol Hill to South Bellevue with the 1 Line Shuttle Bus. My guess is because Crosslake maintenance was announced before another annoying DSTT track fix and 2 Line trains weren’t planned to run from Lynnwood to IDC, but it’s still very annoying to lack a 2 seat ride from Capitol Hill/Downtown Seattle area to I-90/Bellevue.

      Does DSTT have a lot of shutdowns simply because it’s not capable of having high capacity transit and it’s becoming weary? I expect DSTT will be nearly obsolete by the time ST3 is done in the 2050s.

      1. > Does DSTT have a lot of shutdowns simply because it’s not capable of having high capacity transit and it’s becoming weary?

        Simply put, yes.

      2. Does DSTT have a lot of shutdowns simply because it’s not capable of having high capacity transit and it’s becoming weary?

        That is a two part question. Is it capable of high capacity transit? Absolutely. It has a lot more capacity than is currently being used. With a relatively small investment it could carry a lot more.

        It is weary? Sure. Link is about 20 years old. The system is fairly long and it is common for agencies to have issues by now. Not just on the tunnel but everywhere. In this case though it is the opposite. Parts of the new line have issues. This too is common.

        I expect DSTT will be nearly obsolete by the time ST3 is done in the 2050s.

        That is ludicrous. The only reason tunnels like this become obsolete is because they get replaced by something else. A local example is the Convention Center Station. It is relatively common in New York as new systems replaced old ones. But it is silly to think that a city like Seattle will build so many new tunnels downtown that a very good set of stations will just be abandoned.

        1. Yes, significant upgrades are necessary whether or not we build DSTT2, but all the board members not named Claudia Balducci refuse to acknowledge this fact.

        2. “Yes, significant upgrades are necessary whether or not we build DSTT2, but all the board members not named Claudia Balducci refuse to acknowledge this fact.”

          Exactly.

        3. “That is ludicrous. The only reason tunnels like this become obsolete is because they get replaced by something else.”

          I meant functionally obsolete, not obsolete in terms of ridership. DSTT is poorly maintained despite those weekend disruptions and what I find extraordinary is that it has right door platforms which is uncommon in tunnels for ST.

          I really like the analog clock at the top of Westlake Station and the pop art though. I sometimes have trouble finding the stations since the entrances are really hidden and are scattered around.

          I also feel like DSTT should get upgrades and a massive cleanup (as well as improved entrances and signs) instead of wasting that money on a new tunnel when you know the other one is old and weary.

          This should be something to consider, though we should still build Ballard Link at least only from Ballard to Westlake since with all three lines sharing the same tunnel, Ballard Link skips Westlake.

        4. The DSTT stations had a deep cleaning last year. Didn’t you notice it? Is it still dingy? I think ST pledged to deep-clean them every year.

          Also, the CID escalators were replaced a few months ago, and ST is replacing them in all the DSTT stations one station at a time.

        5. “The DSTT stations had a deep cleaning last year. Didn’t you notice it? Is it still dingy?”

          Yes, it’s still dingy. It’s probably because the stations aren’t gated yet and anyone can go into them.

          “I think ST pledged to deep-clean them every year.”

          Every year? That’s a long time! It should be every month at least overnight. If not every day.

          “Also, the CID escalators were replaced a few months ago, and ST is replacing them in all the DSTT stations one station at a time.”

          CID should be getting new elevators, a deep clean, and a lid.

          Also place the escalators differently in the tunnel stations, because I find it weird that they’re at the end of the stations unlike in the newer tunnel stations where they’re in the middle of the station (which in my opinion is better). It’s just that the DSTT stations aren’t center platformed and maybe that’s the problem. I would rather have center DSTT platforms and/or somehow remove the big gap in between platforms. It can be like I said, or just build a wall in between the platforms.

        6. @Mike Orr

          I find them dingy as well, though it’s not terrible and it’s definitely better than before. I know it’s probably pretty expensive to keep clean but I do wish they were kept up a little better.

          In east Asia (for example Japan), subway platforms are spotless partially because of societal norms but also because of a small army of janitorial staff. You’ll very regularly see someone cleaning the platform while waiting for your train. I would really like to see something similar here, though maybe labor costs are too high for that to be realistic…

        7. I meant functionally obsolete, not obsolete in terms of ridership.

          Well that is as clear as mud. If it doesn’t function then it is useless and it wouldn’t have riders. It would be great to have center platforms, although that is really only needed at CID (unless they manage to have a branch to the north and that seems highly unlikely). But otherwise the stations are fine. They are bound to have problems with escalators and elevators but that is true of all the stations (except for the ones that don’t have them). Eventually those get replaced but they don’t become obsolete. The same is true with cleanliness. The stations are unusual since they have extra space in the middle (since it was built so that buses could pass buses). It is nice to have the option to eventually add more platform space (by just moving the tracks) but that doesn’t mean we will want to. There is really nothing the least bit out of date with the tunnel stations except for the one at CID. Center platforms at that station would be great.

        8. “Also, the CID escalators were replaced a few months ago, and ST is replacing them in all the DSTT stations one station at a time.”

          Odd, then, that the southernmost escalators on each platform at CID are still blocked off, and have been for two+ months.

          “CID should be getting new elevators, a deep clean, and a lid.”

          And lighting upgrades. Seriously, it’s beyond embarrassing that this station – which will be the gateway to the World Cup in a couple of weeks – is so poorly lit and filthy (trash, bird droppings, fallen or removed wall tiles never replaced, etc.). While understanding that ST inherited the design issues that have led to some of that, that’s no excuse to let it get to the state it’s in now. The neighborhood deserves better, as do the thousands of people using it to visit the neighborhood and for events. One would have hoped that an event like the World Cup would have been a catalyst to perform what should be basic station maintenance. My fingers are still crossed that they take care of this before the first match but as it stands now it will be an embarrassment to ST, the city, and the region welcoming our visitors.

      3. I would have instead asked a different question:

        Do shutdowns actually require the duration of disruption that ST announces?

        It’s one thing to need repairs significant enough to require a different operation. It’s another to have a full weekend closure if the work some something that could be completed overnight.

        1. Their announcements say work is happening day and night. There are also only so many contractors approved to do this kind of work.

        2. “I would have instead asked a different question:

          Do shutdowns actually require the duration of disruption that ST announces?”

          Imo, we should instead run light rail from 5 am to 10 pm and run the overnight routes from 10 pm to 5 am. That way overnight routes have a larger time window and have a chance of getting more riders, becoming more accessible, and more adequate. Not to mention people would know about it more, though maybe special events are an exception. That way you run both the light rail and the overnight route(s), so you don’t wait 45-60 minutes on New Year’s like I did.

          I also hope this reduced window would also be enough to provide 4 car trains on the 2 Line so we don’t have to wait until 2027, and reduce peak frequencies to 10 minutes on both the 1 and 2 Line so we get more cars but at least still have 5 minute frequencies from Lynnwood to IDC throughout the day.

        3. “Do shutdowns actually require the duration of disruption that ST announces?”

          Sometimes the reduction ends early if the work is done early. ST tries to underpromise on reduction lengths because it has gotten into so much hot water over overpromising.

        4. @Scooby Doo and the Goblin King

          I think a span of 5 AM to 10 PM might be a little too short (particularly 10PM), but with the new overnight route there might be some opportunity to shift the schedule around and increase the amount of time for maintenance, especially on the weekend. For reference right now Link runs from roughly 4 AM to 1 AM the next day, meaning a 2-3 hour overnight window.

        5. Link will end earlier in September when the overnight expresses debut. I think the last runs will be in the 11 o’clock hour.

        6. “Link will end earlier in September when the overnight expresses debut.”

          Won’t the overnight expresses debut in August? Also are you basing off of what happened with the 1 Line overnight trip from Beacon Hill to Federal Way?

        7. “I think a span of 5 AM to 10 PM might be a little too short (particularly 10PM), but with the new overnight route there might be some opportunity to shift the schedule around and increase the amount of time for maintenance, especially on the weekend.”

          Disruptions are really frustrating, and I think overnight maintenance should be the low hanging fruit over weekend maintenance. Yeah, I know ST doesn’t prioritize weekends over weekdays but late night/early morning service should be below those two.

          A 10 pm to 5 am overnight route window would be true night owl service.

          Weekend disruptions be done over the week, let’s say 7 hours a day… That’s 49 hours, still an hour extra from weekend disruptions. And not only that, you don’t disrupt service at all and you can maintain the tracks without disturbing anyone. Not only that, but with overnight disruptions you can do the maintenance anytime.

          As I said, the only time you’d need to run them past 10 pm is if there’s an event. That way you avoid crowding by operating both the bus and the train.

        8. September is the average date of service changes. Sometimes they veer into August or October, but that’s unusual. I’m taking September as representative of the actual date, whenever it will be.

        9. “the only time you’d need to run them past 10 pm is if there’s an event.”

          I see you never go to a music show that ends at midnight or after. Or go to a bar that closes at 2pm and the liveliest hour is 11:30 to 12:30. Or work at a bar and have to get home after work.

      4. The Roosevelt display says the 1 Line closure is to Stadium. So that’s beyond CID. ST usually closes to Stadium or SODO, so it may have intended that all along and the alert was just vaguely worded.

    3. “Forgive the bump from one of last week’s threads… but I’m still really curious about this weekends disruption on the 2 Line.”

      That’s a good question, and you’re right to ask again. I almost replied yesterday to your previous comment. I don’t know why. ST sends multiple alerts on a major disruption like this, and sometimes one has more details on the cause than another one did. I don’t remember seeing any cause mentioned, and I’d have to find all the alerts and go through them to see if any of them say more than that.

  2. I’ll be very interested to see how the 2 Line shuttle even functions. To C/ID, the GTFS feed I see shows buses exiting I-90 to Rainier Ave SB, serving the stop outside the station shared with the 7 on the NB side in a way that isn’t physically possible, then turning around to take Rainier Ave NB to C/ID. To South Bellevue, the stop icon is located on the I-90 on-ramp where the ramp crosses Rainier and is labeled “Rainier Ave S under I-90”.

    I don’t see a good way for a shuttle bus to serve the Rainier entrance to Judkins Park and get on the freeway afterwards. I guess you could do left on Massachusetts, right on 23rd, right on Plum or Holgate, right on Rainier. That’s not a great option, but I think the only other one is via 23rd and Jackson. The GTFS has about 10 minutes in the schedule between each stop and a 29 minute end-to-end time. With the shortest possible detour for the Judkins Park stations, I’m seeing a drive time of 20 minutes (including all detours, but of course no dwell times). I guess it’s a good thing the 550 and 554 are still running – seems like maybe ST should be directing riders that way instead of to a shuttle bus that is almost certainly not going to be able to keep its schedule.

    1. The 550 and 554 should be able to serve the role of a 2-line shuttle. A bit of walking is needed to connect between Judkins Park station and the nearest 554 stop, but it’s not that far, and there are other KCM buses that stop closer (e.g. the 7).

        1. The reason seems to be as a backup for the World Cup, in case East Link fails or gets overcrowded. Better to have a well-known and relatively reliable backup already running than the less-reliable ad hoc systems ST puts in place for Link closures. Local riders know it, so they can tell visitors where the routes go and how frequently and where to find the stops. For the south end, the decision to keep the buses running through the summer was made before ST committed to keeping the 577/578 and 59x after the restructure.

    2. I just got clarification from ST on this. They provided me this screenshot of their planning map: https://seattletransitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2-Line-Crosslake-Shuttle-May-2026.png

      Westbound buses will use the exit ramp to SB Rainier, turn left on Massachusetts, right on 23rd, right on Holgate, right on Rainier, pick up riders under I-90, and proceed to CID.

      Eastbound buses will follow the same loop after picking up riders under I-90, and use the onramp to EB I-90 from Rainier to proceed to Mercer Island.

      Edit: revised for a much more logical reading of the map.

      1. Thanks for getting hold of this and sharing.

        It may look good on a map, but at Massachusetts- 23rd- Holgate – Rainier loop is going to have two possible challenges:

        1. The left turn pocket from SB to EB Massachusetts is short and heavily used.

        2. A right turn from Massachusetts to 23rd is rather tight.

        So it will be an interesting field text!

      2. I’ll be curious to see how this works as well. The poor I-90 ramp configuration and street limitations around Judkins Park station make it really hard to run a 2 Line shuttle across the lake, and the travel time from the Eastside to downtown Seattle is going to be horrific with all the turns. You’re almost better off running Judkins Park-Chinatown-Mercer Island-South Bellevue. You could even extend it to Mt. Baker if you wanted. The backtracking for Judkins Park-Eastside riders isn’t great though.

        1. From the Eastside to Downtown Seattle, you can just take the 550. That’d also avoid the transfer at International District.

        2. Yes of course. I’m more talking about any time after September when there is no 550. The convoluted routing of the replacement shuttle is likely going to add a significant time penalty.

  3. I got a popup on STB asking for my email address to “subscribe” and get access to the “full archive”. There’s a link to cancel it. I’m investigating why it started, and whether it was for some worthwhile feature or just came unexpectedly in a general theme update.

    STB has no subscription per se, and the full archive is available anonymously under the “Archives” menu item. This feature seems like it might be for getting email alerts of new articles and comments. I just check the site every day.

      1. I’ve replaced the subscription for a weekly digest with the option to subscribe to new posts.

  4. Reader survey:

    – Would you like the ability to get email alerts of new articles or comments?

    – Would you still like it if it required enabling this popup?

    – Do you use the longstanding newsfeed feature? I’m not sure what it does or how to use it, but generally a newsfeed is something an aggregator app pulls every day to show you links to new articles in the aggregator’s own UI.

    1. – Yes, I have to check the site daily and I’m sometimes oblivious to Page 2 posts.

      – No, the popup is annoying. I like the check boxes when you’re commenting better. I hope this popup doesn’t end up being as annoying like the Pierce Transit interactive system map popup. If someone is really annoyed on getting a bunch of emails from STB, they can just email STB to stop emailing them.

      – No.

    2. 1) Shrug; I wouldn’t use it.
      2) No. Popups are a huge negative to me.
      3) Yes! That’s how I get notified of new articles.

  5. I understand that the following statement is against the “Canon” of the Modern Progressive Democratic Party, but here it is: “Sound Transit needs its own Overhead Power Distribution Maintenance crews.”

    The “contractors” deliver shoddy work, take their own sweet time to do so, and keep ratcheting up the price. Yes, yes, there will be times when — gasp! — the crew will not be “needed” for a couple of days.

    They can help train the recruits.

    Tri-Met does this and has few to no “unplanned outages” in the OCS. Those which do occur — usually as a result of a winter “Gorge Icestorm” are quickly repaired.

    They also have dedicated crews to maintain the substations that power the system.

    Tri-Met has sixty miles of in-service trackage. ST has sixty-three. It is past time to put on their Big Boy pants and start providing reliable service.

    1. “It is past time to put on their Big Boy pants and start providing reliable service.”

      I agree with this statement.

      I think that ST relies way too many contractors that do things that most rail transit rail systems with at least 50K daily riders don’t — by issuing contracts with other transit operators or the private sector for many functions. Other systems instead hire internal employees and those are often unionized.

      The modern Democratic Party is developed partly from union employees. So I see hiring internal employees (versus contractors) as a move actually more consistent with Democratic Party principles.

      Organizationally, moving towards an employee-based default solution and away from a contractor-based default solution takes deliberate action and an implantation strategy that will take several years. Different responsibilities have to be shifted in different time scales. Some things are better internally run and others are not. So it’s not going to be an easy change to adopt or implement. But I think that a discussion should be had about it at this point with an eye to an eventual switch.

      Finally, making this change requires a different kind of management skill. For example, building or repairing one’s house with the help of workers takes different supervisory skills if the workers work for the homeowner directly rather than a building contractor who has been contracted by the homeowner. Some things are better contracted out and others are not. But the basic assessment is often not made with ST — and at a high level it’s an assessment that I think needs to happen. There are just too many service hours and boardings on ST vehicles for a contractor model to make sense, especially as track ownership and maintenance is an added responsibility (as opposed to buses that run on pavement owned and maintained by other government agencies).

    2. I wouldn’t use the word “progressive” to describe the tendency to prefer contractors for everything – I think “neoliberal” is more accurate, as the general justification is that having everything be subject to market forces is good for the taxpayer. But quibbles over nomenclature aside, I think ST is a pretty clear example of why this doesn’t really work very well in practice. ST needs to do way more of it’s own work in the entire maintenance and operation of every aspect of their system.

    3. I guess I should have put a “/snark” tag after the remark about “The Modern Progressive Democratic Canon”. I’m glad to hear that the basic message did get through, though.

  6. Amendments non-update: I still haven’t seen hide nor hair of the full list of amendments for ST3’s modification resolution tomorrow. We may get more information today, we may not see them until tomorrow’s board meeting, or who knows what. I’d expect a document on the meeting page with them, like all the other documents (agenda, resolutions, reports), but I still don’t see one.

    And now the sidebar of document links is only coming up intermittently, which I’ve never seen before. So maybe ST is updating it. Or possibly, the vote is being postponed because it’s such a big issue and it would take a long time to go through all the amendments and decide on them if there are thirty of them. I can’t see how the boardmembers can have just 48 hours to review the amendments and two hours to discuss them and then they’ll be ready to vote on everything in all subareas, when there are so many tradeoffs and different parts of the board are half-and-half on different ones.

    1. Zahilay’s amendments were just announced via press release (https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WAKING/bulletins/4193cf6), but the Board seems to have adopted Seattle City Council’s recent preference of not publishing amendments until just prior to major meetings.

      Zahilay’s amendments include:

      – Moving forward to construct the Graham Street station with Mayor Katie Wilson, providing opportunities for transit-oriented development and connectivity in the Rainier Valley.

      – Securing resources for transit mitigation for North Tukwila with Mayor Thomas McLeod, Councilmember Steffanie Fain, and Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda, supporting mobility while continuing to move forward design on the Boeing Access Road Station and working to identify cost savings and alternative financing and delivery options.

      – Allocating full funding that will ensure parking access at the Renton Transit Center with Councilmember Ed Prince, Mayor Angela Birney, Councilmember Steffanie Fain, and Mayor Thomas McLeod. Moving forward long-planned parking to connect with the future STRIDE line connecting communities from Burien to Bellevue.

      – Committing to pursue cost-saving and financial resources to complete the full Ballard Link Extension with Mayor Wilson, Councilmember Dan Strauss and Councilmember Mosqueda. This includes directing Sound Transit to initiate a Request for Information to identify strategies that reduce cost or speed up delivery.

      This is interesting since Zahilay ostensibly assisted in developing the original proposal, but perhaps the uproar from transit advocates in the last few weeks has shifted the political winds.

        1. I found it on the ST site a day later than I expected and wrote a comment.

      2. Sigh pretty unfortunate we didn’t land Balducci. Would have been nice to have a pro-transit KC Exec for once.

  7. Deep cleaning is different from regular cleaning. It’s like overhauling a bicycle: you take it apart and clean and re-oil everything whether it needs it or not, in hopes that will avoid further problems for the next year. So it’s when ST washes the walls, and more important to us, gives the escalators and elevators a full review.

    1. Regular cleaning happens more often. I don’t know whether it’s weekly or monthly or what exactly ST does for it.

      Yes. It would be nice if ST could wipe up spills and sweep litter every hour and sweep litter every day it every hour, but it’s probably too labor-costly.

      1. A cleaner likely costs the same as a security guard. If some of the underground stations had an assigned cleaner or a cleaning crew that hopped from station to station, the platforms would likely stay cleaner. There’s something about seeing a cleaner that might deter people from spitting their gum out onto the floor or writing on the walls.

        I went through University of Washington Station and Capitol Hill Station an hour ago. Both are filthy.

  8. Are the 2 line and 1 line busses running independent of each other? Weird. I assume 2 line bus riders at least don’t need to transfer to a 1 line shuttle to go north to Cap Hill? Otherwise, downtown Bellevue to UW becomes a 4 seat ride!

    It seems that a better approach would be run higher frequency combined 1 and 2 line shuttles, Cap Hill – ID – Bellevue South. I would also promote the bus lines that cross from the east side directly to UW station, as an alternative to bypass the mess in downtown Seattle, right in the announcement.

    1. OK, so looking at the list of shuttle stops, it appears that they do want you to transfer between 1 line and 2 line shuttles at International District. So it really is the worst possible way to do this. Is this set in stone? Do they have time to improve the plan if we contact them?

      1. Well, the specific trip from Bellevue to UW is ostensibly covered in one seat by Route 271, but the exit ramp issues reportedly make that trip rather arduous. My guess is that ST is testing this shuttle configuration to see if it’s manageable for “dual disruption” like this. Abundant complaints would probably help motivate ST interline the 1 and 2 Line shuttles through downtown for future disruptions.

    1. Reed is right to point out that the projected opening dates are way off. I don’t think it’s going to change any Board decision though.

      The more years that the great Spine severing doesn’t occur, the better it is for Link riders. So getting to SeaTac will be like it is today at least for another decade.

      It’s sad that so many riders have to think of a delay as good news, huh?

    1. Excellent! I was just taking Link through this area yesterday and thinking it’s ripe for redevelopment.

    2. This was first in some Bellevue Downtown newsletter months ago. They are rolling this out in phases and will start with the apartment building in initial phase. The building footprint is unfortunately on the way of planned NE 6th St extension in the past. B Line could have used that freeway crossing to avoid NE 8th St freeway traffic.

      1. HZ, I don’t think it is. That’s 116th NE nestled at the base of the two high-rises. There’s room to build a bus-only bridge between just north of the Link tracks between 112th and 116th where that line of tree images is. It wouldn’t be cheap, but it’s certainly do-able.

        1. Sorry. “Between the HOV interchange and 116th”. The segement between 112th and the middle of I-405 is already built, though it would probably have to be re-configured.

        2. By looking at the rendering, it seems like NE 6th is aligned with that 2 lines of trees, but the rendering is not accurate.
          If you check current satellite image, NE 6th is actually a little bit south. The lines of trees surrounds parking row south of Hotel 116 Hotel, which is not exactly aligned with NE 6th St. The originally plan could have avoided acquiring any land from the hotel, but now if a connection to 116th NE needed to build, they would need to acquire some land from the hotel so that NE 6th can align with the new development’s driveway.

  12. Sound Transit just posted on their blog with results from their vague “vision board” Enterprise Initiative survey from a few months ago.

    https://www.soundtransit.org/blog/platform/what-we-heard-you-public-feedback-enterprise-initiative

    Nothing terribly insightful or surprising. No one wants delays, everyone wants light rail expansions, and each area preferred their local pet projects. Perhaps the most interesting thing was the map of supporters for each project. The support for Ballard link was not only strong in the project area (ie, NW Seattle), but also the north part of East King and north part of South King.

    1. There is also an “engagement summary report,” and while somewhat buried, I found this statement in the North King summary:

      “Feedback regarding the Ballard Link Extension was particularly intense. Engaging with organizations like Puget Sound Sage, Historic South Downtown, SCIDpda, the FutureTracks coalition, the Ballard Alliance, and Seattle Center stakeholders, Sound Transit heard opposition to the proposed second downtown tunnel. Several constituents advocated for interlining the Ballard extension into the existing transit tunnel. Critics argue split stations in the Chinatown- International District disproportionately harm underserved communities, are prohibitively expensive, and worsen the rider experience with inconvenient transfers.”

      2. The telling thing here for me is that the narrative finally admits broad dissatisfaction with DSTT2 as now planned. Previously, ST has tried to avoid even mentioning any public concerns about its cost, difficulty and value of the DSTT2 segment. The decision to not have a station at Jackson Street in particular clearly remains very unpopular to this day among those following the project, including many from the Asian communities.

        More and more people are becoming aware of the terrible transfer setup for riders if ST3 is ever completed. More people are aware that even ending 1 Line at Seattle Center hurts more riders than it helps because of the terrible transfer setup. More and more people are learning about the actual depths of these stations and how that makes Link unattractive for shorter trips.

        ST has been bombarded by similar comments in the past about this. They’ve gotten scrubbed from past report summaries. So the fact they they’ve even made it into the document is something notable.

    2. it’s not “support for Ballard Link” in those suburban pink zones. It’s support for Link to SLU and Seattle Center. There’s no Renton-Ballard or Redmond-Ballard ridership hidden in those maps.

      1. The map doesn’t say that. Maybe they go to Ballard more than you think, or they support it for the general good of the region. Just like how many residents in the 45th corridor support Link everywhere it makes sense, not just in their own area. It also goes into Snohomish County, roughly Mountlake Terrace and the part of 99 west of it. The 522 area were champions of S3 and transit in general. The fact that Kenmore and Bothell are bluish may suggest they had slightly more support for Issaquah than S3, perhaps due to some Eastside affinity. Support for Ballard might have been close, but the map can only show one color, and S2 and S3 weren’t among the choices. For that matter, S1 wasn’t among the choices for Renton or Burien.

      2. The mapped responses don’t really have much utility. By asking about Ballard Link combined with DSTT2 and including SLU and Seattle Center, they don’t really present the sentiment of how people feel about components of each project. The same is true for Everett Link where the idea of reaching Mariner is combined with reaching Everett and including the time consuming deviation near Paine Field.

        And let’s be clear that ST is asking these questions without discussing cost, travel time savings or anticipated ridership with the respondents. Many people would rethink their responses if ST provided basic informational data that is typically used for decisions like this. This is part of the goal of the agency to make decisions based on emotions and self-interest, and not on making fiscally responsible choices as regional citizens. Every survey professional in the world knows that survey questions and methods can be pushed to achieve certain outcomes.

        Finally, the survey is optional and not statistically significant. It wasn’t based on good sampling techniques. It’s not like a survey that is carefully weighted and pursued based on even basic things like population per zip code or age ranges. A clever activist group could bias it very easily.

        So its main function is to illustrate that people want projects near them — which is an expected outcome given how it was structured. In other words, it’s to give the Board legitimacy to go in whatever direction the lobbyists want them to go.

    1. Also of note, it looks like Breeze also uses INIT. Orca and INIT still haven’t clarified why they can’t enable apple wallet support.

      —

      As a side note, the Breeze turnstiles look incredibly silly with how wide they are with what looks like the same init “brick” validator built in—much less sleek than the modern Cubic turnstiles you see with OMNY.

    2. “Orca and INIT still haven’t clarified why they can’t enable apple wallet support.”

      It is probably very different layers of agreements Orcas Card needs to negotiate with Apple and perhaps additional cost to be on Apple Wallet. In the end it probably still won’t be able to support certain special Orcas Cards.
      There must be a reason that many more fare systems support open payment theses days, but only 6 of them also have Apple Wallet digital transit card.

Comments are closed.