On June 3, 2026, the Move All Seattle Sustainably (MASS) Coalition delivered a letter to the Seattle City Council supporting Mayor Wilson’s proposal for the 2026 Seattle Transit Measure. Seattle Transit Blog, a proud member of the MASS Coalition, is reprinting the letter to broaden the Coalition’s message for better transit service. The original letter is available here.

To the Seattle City Council,

The Move All Seattle Sustainably (MASS) Coalition is an alliance of 14 organizations working toward a safer, more accessible, and climate-aligned transportation system in Seattle. We support Mayor Wilson’s proposed Seattle Transit Measure (STM) and want to share what we believe must be at the heart of it. This measure represents a unique collaboration between the City of Seattle and King County Metro, with a continued commitment to funding additional service for Seattleites beyond what the county can provide on its own. That partnership is worth investing in, and we want to see it done right.

The track record of the current Seattle Transit Measure, passed by voters in 2020 with 80% approval, gives us confidence that this increased measure works for Seattle’s transit riders. Since 2020, the STM has funded over 141,000 annual service hours, completed more than 30 capital projects to improve travel times and rider safety, and delivered meaningful fare relief through the Transportation Access Program (TAP). In 2024 alone, TAP generated 1.7 million rides and saved participants over $4 million in fares. The new measure is an opportunity to build on that foundation and go further.

Focus on boosting bus service

The most important thing this measure can do is put more buses on the road. The proposed measure would add 100,000 annual service hours to a system that currently funds over 141,000, bringing Seattle to 89% completion of the Frequent Transit Network, with every funded route connecting to at least one light rail stop. That is a meaningful expansion from the 2020 measure. 

Increase frequencies on evenings and weekends

A significant share of those hours are targeted at evenings and weekends, which matters enormously to hourly workers, service industry employees, caregivers, and anyone who tries to navigate our city after 5pm. Reliable off-peak service makes transit useful for how Seattleites live and work. We also believe that maintaining current service levels must be a guaranteed floor, not something subject to erosion as operator and maintenance costs rise. With Light Rail expansions still missing key parts of our city, this is an opportunity to restore connectivity and service that was lost immediately after the pandemic.

Savings and fare relief through the Transportation Access Program

Expanding access to transit through fare subsidies is just as important as expanding service. The most regressive thing we can do is force Seattleites to own a car. At an average cost of nearly $12,000 per year in Washington, car ownership is a financial burden that falls hardest on the people who can least afford it. An efficient transit system enables residents to save money by not needing to own a car, or not needing to use one as often. The proposed measure would extend the Transit Access Pass to 22,000 people, including 12,000 beyond currently funded levels, making all Seattle Housing Authority housing choice voucher holders eligible. A subsidized ORCA card saves roughly $1,200 per year. That kind of direct relief matters.

Speed up buses with signal priority and bus lanes

On the capital side, we believe funding should go toward targeted spot improvements that make bus service faster, more reliable, and more frequent. This includes signal priority, bus lanes, and stop upgrades that add up to meaningful time savings for riders trying to get somewhere on time. The 2024 Seattle Transportation Levy, approved by voters last November, already dedicates $189 million over eight years to pedestrian safety, including sidewalk construction and repair. STM capital funds should stay focused on what moves riders faster and gets them to their stop safely.

Articulate a long-term plan for the streetcar

Finally, the $25 million per year proposed for Seattle Streetcar operations and maintenance represents more than a quarter of the STM’s transit service budget. We believe the City needs to present a concrete plan for how that investment will make the Streetcar a more useful part of the network. That level of funding requires a clear strategy.

We recognize that a sales tax is a regressive funding mechanism, and we do not take that lightly. We support the Mayor’s proposed measure because the alternative, a city where more people are forced into car ownership, is even more regressive. We see this measure as a foundation to build from. We are committed to future work for additional and more equitable revenue tools that keep people moving outside of cars.

Seattle deserves a transit measure that moves people where they need to go, conveniently, safely, affordably, and sustainably.

Sincerely,

Transit Riders Union, Build Ballard Light Rail, Fix the L8, The Urbanist, Sierra Club Washington, Seattle Subway, Cascade Bicycle Club, Nondrivers Alliance, Transportation Choices, Seattle Transit Blog, and 350 Seattle.

50 Replies to “MASS Coalition’s priorities for the 2026 STM”

  1. If the two Seattle Streetcar lines only has 2% (rough estimate) of the ridership that bus ridership in the city has, does it get 25% of STM’s transit service budget? Again, 2% of the ridership, 25% of the transit service budget.

    I wish the MASS Coalition Board of Regents had made a different, stronger suggestion for the streetcar. Rather than asking for a plan on how to make the streetcar a more useful part of the network, I would have liked to seen a request to begin the process of ending the streetcar.

    1. The two local streetcars are almost entirely funded by Seattle. The FHSC had ST2 funding for its first several years. The streetcars were a poor strategic choice by the city. In the aughts, Nickels and Drago seemed to be searching for more control of transit in Seattle; they chose mode; the better option was the power of the purse. The Seattle base Seattle bus service is funded by countywide taxes.

  2. Silly question: if the SLU streetcar were discontinued, could the streetcars be moved to First Hill to allow that line to run more often? I’m guessing that limited storage yard space means “no”, but it is still a question worth asking.

    1. No, the FHSC requires battery power. The SLU cars could be sold or scrapped.

      1. “The SLU cars could be sold or scrapped.”

        Oh yeah, now we’re talking. Let’s sell them and do something else with that money.

    2. If timing was right, maybe they can be sold to fill Portland Streetcar’s Montgomery Park Extension, which I think is in design phase right now.

        2. Yes, but they will have a glut of non-battery streetcars once/if the Montgomery Park extension is built. Maybe they’d buy Seattle’s for parts but not really sure. Or maybe the SLU cars are in better shape than the newest non-battery ones in Portland but I’m not sure about that either.

      2. Portland may want those cars for parts – although they are going to be replacing their Škoda fleet with CAF Urbos by 2030.

    1. What do you think is a fair price for a 1st avenue streetcar? How much is too much?

        1. Don’t believe the last $410M estimate for the 1.2 mile streetcar extension. Typically ~1 mile of urban streetcar track is an order of magnitude less. For example, the Salt Lake City S Line cost about $27.8 million per mile, while the Detroit Q Line cost around $54.5 million per mile. Unfortunately, it is common practice for leaders who want to kill a project to request an estimate for a gold-plated design that bears little resemblance to what is needed. Respect that a consultant had to work very hard to pile on enough unrelated line items to justify a horrendous estimate to be provided to the public. An ounce of value engineering will go a long way to reduce costs on this project.

          The sole reason the streetcar remains incomplete is because entitled drivers concerned about losing street parking along 1st Street whined in the last mayor’s ear. Don’t overthink this one.

        2. Jon, the major reason for the cost is the requirement to rebuild most of First Avenue because it has a bunch of empty space below the street, because it was built up over the original ground level. Maybe $400M is more than it would really should cost, but the extraordinary high cost isn’t just a typical “we pay a ton of money for dubious reasons” thing or “business owners complained”

        3. As far as I can tell Harrell was a streetcar booster. He rebranded the connection to the CCC and pushed to revive the project, but it still died under the pressure of increased cost estimates.

          My understanding is that the original $150m estimate under Durkan was completely off base and didn’t include required work like utility relocation etc.

        4. The CCC/CC evolved into “requiring” a total street rebuild (likely assuming replacement of all utilities and the late 1800s street dirt with engineered geotechnical fill) which cranked the cost to $400M+.

          This could probably be cut back a bit, but a lot of the expense is apparently justified in PSQ since the streets would have to be completely rebuilt there to replace the retaining walls under the sidewalks with something that could hold a full streetcar. Look for signs around PSQ which prohibit heavy trucks from driving in the curb lane. That’s because those areaway retaining walls might collapse if too much weight is put on them.

        5. There was a reddit thread about what you could do for Seattle if you had 1 billion dollars and I said, “Completed 1st ave streetcar” I also put a few other streetcar ideas because why not?

          I seem to remember the original 2000s streetcar plan was pretty ambitious and if built would have been a useful addition. Plagued with issues because it does run in traffic but still useful.

      2. That’s not even the biggest issue. Assume for a second that building the connection is free. Simply running the trains is not worth it. Again, it cost substantially more to run the trains than a bus. Yet the routing is flawed and redundant. It makes no sense as a bus route and thus makes no sense as a streetcar route, especially since it costs more to operate.

        1. Let’s do a bit of math here:

          For the SLU line alone, ridership is around 222,592 per year?

          Annual cost is what? $4.6 million per year?

          So it costs $22 per rider to go an average of around a mile and a half or less.

          And people think North Sounder is expensive. At least North Sounder are significantly long trips.

  4. Get the streetcar to Fremont, and from thence on Leary to Ballard. It will get there much earlier than anything ST is ‘promising’ for Ballard (which may never come it seems) – AND if you get Ballard’s ridership it will justify the expense.

    Additionally, if ST ever does get Link to Ballard I’m sure they would be happy to design a world class, seamless transfer from Link to the street car (or vice versa), to facilitate an even more efficient transit network.

    2. Have Sound Transit take over the streetcar and make it into a regional thing.
      Not saying they have the political capital to expand it but at least it could rolled into their services. The already run a streetcar in Tacoma might as well run one in Seattle too.

      This is my ST4 idea.

  5. This STM is a key moment for Seattle transit. Wilson is correct to be assertive. A countywide measure to improve transit service does not seem imminent. There, South King County is the big issue.

    I made several suggestions.
    One, yes, approve the three tenths and use it mostly for service.
    Two, also ask the voters to approve the remaining $50 VLF and target that revenue for pavement management; it could be targeted at transit arterials; some are mutli-lane arterials with safety issues (e.g., Aurora Avenue North, Lake City Way NE, 15th Avenue NE, 15th and Elliott avenues West, Rainier and MLK Jr. Way South, 1st and 4th avenues South, East Marginal Way South). The VLF is transportation related; all modes need pavement that is not failing.
    Three, cancel the SLU Streetcar; it is costly and redundant; its maintenance base block has high market value. (There may be a legal or financial issue with the LID that funded one-half the capital cost).

    Next, work with Metro to restructure service; follow the service guidelines and not Metro Connects; the latter is unaffordable. There are some route consolidations that could improve service frequency and reduce waiting. RossB made a good one regarding Mapleleaf and routes 67 and 348. Stop slowing transit with SDOT projects. Truncate the FHSC at 5th Avenue South to achieve shorter headway and improved reliability for the same number of cars and service subsidy. Shift several routes to 1st Avenue from 3rd Avenue to improve CBD transit circulation.

    With the disappointing ST3 reset from the Chair’s package, the D Line should get some help.

    The two local streetcars are the failed legacy of Nickels and McGinn. They had failed vision and execution. The SLU was used by Vulcan to market their SLU land. We have a urban center now; the marketing is done.

  6. I can see SLU Streetcar having a positive impact to real estate there. Clearly some stakeholders want it there for non-transit-related reason. Otherwise, it would have been gone during last meltdown a couple years ago.

    I was neutral and slight leaning toward to keeping the streetcar because I think this is just part of urban design for SLU, but that’s until I saw the recent news about STM measure and breakdown of how much was spent on streetcar. It was such an eye sore to see the streetcar system takes that big piece of pie in the budget. As many of you pointed out, it is redundant in the network and it is not faster than bus because of right of way and short distance. So there is not even a pivot point to amplify its benefit from its 3-digit ridership.

    I think it is time to revisit how is SLU streetcar gonna be funded moving forward.

    1. Seattle could invite Vulcan and Amazon to pay for the SLU line. The billionaires have far more fiscal power than the city.

      1. I’m pretty sure Vulcan and Amazon already largely paid/pay for operations.

        2. Review of articles referenced in the South Lake Union Streetcar wikipedia article says about half of the $50M construction cost was funded with a LID proposed by Vulcan, which owns about half of SLU.

          Looks like Amazon paid around $200k annually for a while, but it’s unclear if they kept up that support through COVID. So, Vulcan paid for half of the construction and Amazon paid for a token slice of operations.

    2. Clearly some stakeholders want it there for non-transit-related reason. Otherwise, it would have been gone during last meltdown a couple years ago.

      I don’t think that is the case. My guess is most of the real estate people don’t care. I don’t think Amazon or Vulcan care anymore either.

      A lot of these people haven’t given up on connecting the two lines. This does include some downtown advocates, so there is that. If you abandon the South Lake Union Streetcar, you’ve pretty much abandoned that project as well. But mainly there are a lot of people that just like streetcars. This has nothing to do with whether it is a good value from a transit standpoint. They just like them. But with the connector, there is a limbo situation. Nobody wants to actually kill the project and say “enough already, it was a stupid idea”. This would be especially difficult for a transit-oriented mayor, given how many people in her base love the streetcars (although the mayor seems quite comfortable upsetting her base when it comes to the security cameras). Thus we are stuck with a streetcar that is just not worth it.

  7. Would this STM include any funding allocated towards improving any of our transit centers? Mount Baker Transit Center is a major hub for bus-light rail and bus-bus connections, but offers an awful rider experience. I realize there have been long-term plans to redesign the whole Rainier/MLK/MBTC area for well over a decade now, but we don’t seem to be making much progress. Are there other funding mechanisms already being eyed for MBTC improvements?

    1. The mayor’s plans allocate $3.5 million a year for transit infrastructure. I could see that including Mount Baker but it might not make the cut.

    2. Let’s close Mount Baker Transit Center and build a bus plaza under Mount Baker Station. I can see the bus plaza having a similar layout to Federal Way Downtown Station.

      The old Mount Baker TC could be a candidate site for future TOD.

      1. One idea I’ve suggested on here before is to turn 26th Ave. and Forest St., just north of the transit center into a one-way bus loop. (To make it work, you would eliminate all of the car parking and repave the street to handle the load of buses it would get). This facility would replace the existing Mt. Baker Transit center, whose land would be sold for development.

      2. I think a good case could be made to move the Mt Baker Transit Center. It was chosen at a time before Link was ever laid out.

        I do think that there needs to be a basic step before just moving it. That step is determine what buses need to either run through it for layovers or next to it for through routes. It’s been a long while since the routes that serve it were evaluated as a system. The busiest routes (7 and 106) don’t even pull into the current center. Buses cannot easily climb McClellan to the west. Route 4 ends a few blocks shy of it, and Route 14 just runs through it but lays over several blocks away. It’s really only a layover point for Routes 8 and 48 today.

        All of the Link openings in the past five years has meant that Metro staff has done major route restructuring of the routes across most of the County since 2021 except for central and southern Seattle. Since there won’t be any new Link stations in SE Seattle except for Graham, Metro can do long-term route planning in this area and determine its needs with minimal uncertainty that should hold in place for at least 25 years.

        I think this step is badly needed. Constructing a relocated transit center without first revisiting the bus network first seems rather rash.

        Maybe the whole effort can be approached in RapidRide R planning and project development. If nested as part of a larger BRT project, it may be able to more easily garner FTA funds to help.

        1. “I think a good case could be made to move the Mt Baker Transit Center. It was chosen at a time before Link was ever laid out.”

          Construction began on the Mount Baker Station in 2005. The site was chosen years before that. Mount Baker Transit Center broke ground in 2008.

        2. Apparently there was literally no coordination between planners at Metro and ST when the Mt Baker station and TC were being designed. The total lack of integration and ensuing complaints resulted in ST starting to push station area planning and transit integration as part of project design.

        3. yes, a hybrid route, such as Route 8, could be allowed to lay on westbound South Forest Street. I made that suggestion in about 2016. The stop could also allow passengers; they would have a shorter walk to/from Link.

    3. I’ve tried to nudge things with MBTC. It originally was meant to be on the other side of Rainier, next to the Link Station. The new housing development there should “allow” that to happen but Metro is not involved at all.

      Big problem is that SDOT, Metro, Sound Transit (which owns MBTC), and the Seattle Office of Housing all need to come together and do something.

  8. In this presentation linked by HZ in the prior article (https://seattle.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15549586&GUID=E1A729FA-2CCE-46C4-B187-C79BD78F7289) the city says that “Both lines serve a higher than average share of zero vehicle households and people of color”. I’m not doubting the veracity of the analysis, but not talking about income is sort of disingenuous here. The FHSC serves relatively less wealthy parts of inner Seattle, SLU serves the wealthiest. And unless I’m missing something, my assumption is that these numbers reflect nearby residents – not riders. I don’t think we should let the City make the case for the SLU line on equity grounds when buses are an obviously better investment than a stub line serving the well-paid workers of the one of the richest corporations in the world. I won’t argue that the FHSC should be deleted, but I don’t see any kind of defensible argument that the City should pay a premium for transit service the SLU line (especially when it’s duplicated by the C, 40, and 70).

    I get the trepidation. Streetcars were all the rage for ten random years. But I do not see any reason to keep the SLU line around, and it’s going to be terrible value to run for the rest of eternity.

  9. I know it’s not a city issue, but one thing we’re missing for bus speed and reliability is widespread stop consolidation. I ride routes like the 5 and 44 that have sections with stops every two blocks or less. The bus has barely pulled out into traffic before it needs to pull over again for the next stop.

    Translink has found that bus stop balancing can save riders 3-6 minutes of travel time, while saving the agency money: https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/bus-projects/bus-stop-balancing

    Would be great to see transit advocates push for this low-hanging fruit.

    1. Two blocks was Metro’s standard in the 1970s when I started riding, and it may have been inherited from decades earlier. But since the mid 2000s Metro has been stop-dieting them one route at a time to a new standard of 0.25-0.33 miles, which corresponds more closely to arterial spacing. All the RapidRide lines had stop diets, and other streets like Denny Way, Bellevue Ave, University Way, and 15th Ave NE.

      Areas that have steadfastly not gotten them include steep hills (because the hill shortens the reasonable walk distance by half) and low-volume residential areas (where most stops aren’t used most of the time). The eastern third of the 62 is an example of both (rolling hills and nobody at many stops).

      The 44 has to stop at all north-south transfer routes, so that may lead to closer spacing than it would otherwise have. It also has hills such as Phinney Ridge. I don’t see it stopping gratuitously at too many streets, but that’s a matter of judgment. The 44’s biggest problem is traffic congestion, and the solution for that is transit-priority lanes where four total lanes are available (i.e., not on the west side of Phinney Ridge where there are only three lanes and there are no alternative nearby arterials for cars).

  10. Legit question: Why are the operating costs of the streetcar so high? Is it just that it’s boutique/doesn’t have the economy of scale that buses do? Or is there something about streetcars that will always mount a higher cost?

    Here’s why I’m asking: With the cancellation of Ballard Link, I’m expecting that we’ll start seeing a push for an extension of the SLU streetcar along the 40 route to Fremont, then up the ex-Ballard Terminal Railway (Burke) tracks into Ballard, maybe with a turn north on 14th/17th/20th as a (much) cheaper alternate way to serve Ballard (and Fremont) by (at least partially) grade-separated rail.

    I suspect most commenters on this blog will not like this idea, with the core argument that this route would be better served by more service hours on the 40. And as much as I vastly prefer the smoother ride/more open space of a streetcar to a bus, I see why more service hours => shorter waits => better service. But it leads me to wonder how fixed the higher cost per service hour is for the streetcars — will they always cost more or is it just because there are so few of them?

    1. Steve M, have you ever been on the First Hill Streetcar, or the SLU Streetcar? Do you really think people want that, but from Ballard to downtown?

    2. I don’t think there’s an example in the US of a city with streetcars that cost a similar amount to operate to buses. Portland for example has a much larger network and they have operating costs per hour similar to ours. Maybe with even larger scale we could drive down the costs of streetcars, but I don’t see Seattle reaching that point any time in the near future.

      https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/ts21-service-data-and-operating-expenses-time-series-mode-2

    3. “I’m expecting that we’ll start seeing a push for an extension of the SLU streetcar along the 40 route to Fremont, then up the ex-Ballard Terminal Railway (Burke) tracks into Ballard, maybe with a turn north on 14th/17th/20th as a (much) cheaper alternate way to serve Ballard (and Fremont) by (at least partially) grade-separated rail.”

      Sound Transit already has a study for that. Mayor McGinn paid ST to study it at the same time as Ballard Link. So you could theoretically revive that project, although under SDOT rather than ST. It was going to be on Leary Way rather than the Ballard Terminal Railway, although that probably doesn’t make much difference and Leary Way has a better walkshed.

      https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/04/24/sound-transits-conceptual-study-should-you-be-worried/ (See #2.)

Comments are closed.