Correction, 8/12 11:30am: We retract the previous statement about a train derailing and have updated the paragraph below with a comment from Sound Transit. We regret this error.
After someone crashed their car into a barrier and pushed it onto the tracks along MLK Way on Monday evening, a southbound train attempted to use the pocket track at Rainier Beach station to switch to the northbound track. During this process, the train “experienced a split switch at low speed while entering the Henderson Pocket Track and once the switch was inspected, the train moved back out of the pocket under its own power.” Thanks to the quick response from Sound Transit crews, normal 1 Line service resumed about 2 hours after the initial car crash.
Transit & Streets:
- A 16-year-old driver hit and killed a 37-year-old man early Tuesday morning in northwest Seattle. (SPD Blotter)
- Sound Transit’s Rider Experience Committee approved the creation of a program to retrofit 14 Link stations with fare gates. (The Urbanist)
- Amtrak Cascades have a service disruption between Seattle in Portland due to a warehouse fire near the tracks in Portland. (Amtrak Cascades)
- Temporary state-funded Bremerton Fast Ferry sailings will end after August 31. (Kitsap Headways)
- Community Transit Board of Directors approve the 2026-2031 Transit Development Plan. (Community Transit)
- The Office of Planning & Community Development is asking the community for input on land uses near Graham St station via a survey.
Land Use & Housing:
- Seattle City Council passes legislation to ban rental junk fees. (Office of the Mayor)
- UW laundry site at Mount Baker station set to become affordable housing by El Centro de la Raza and Mercy Housing Northwest (Seattle Times, $)
- After years of studies, Seattle continues to study housing at Fort Lawton in Magnolia. (The Urbanist)
- CM Strauss proposes legislation to require RV residents to get permits. (Pubicola)
Site note: We’ve been getting an epidemic of spam comments for the past two days. The new ones apparently use AI to generate a plausible-sounding opinion or repeat a real concern for a few sentences, and then end with a link to an unrelated site. We are working to moderate and prevent such comments. In the meantime, please do not engage with or click on the links in these comments.
This is an open thread. That does not include spam comments.
This reporter has misstated the facts. There was no derailment; it was a split switch, meaning that the switch was not aligned for the proper movement. I would request that the reporter file a correction to this report.
Clarifying “split switch” would help
.
If the points of the switch weren’t aligning correctly for the move in the opposite direction, then the question is why?
Presumably the operator noticed that, and contacted the operations center.
“Success is built on consistency, not intensity.”
The site is mentioned on my profile name for everyone who is interested.”
[Ed. This is a new kind of spam. The target link is in the name rather than at the end of the message. I changed the link to example.com and am leaving the message up so everyone can see the format. -MO]
[spam]
[Ed. Way to go, bot, replying to another spam comment probably generated by you. -MO]
The post has been correct with information from Sound Transit. We regret the error.
Not so fast. A “split switch” implies one of two things. In both cases the train approaches the turnout from the points sise (“upstream” in a directional running territory like Link).
Either the points were not securely positioned against one “running rail” (the rails on the outer sides of the turnout) or the other and one wheel or the other fell off the rail OR the switch machine changes its position as a car passes through it, sending one truck on the “through” direction and the other on the diverging path.
Either of these events is a serious error. In the first case the switch machine is misaligned or something is preventing the points from completing their arc of travel, but in either case the machine is providing the traffic control system with erroneous information about its state.
In the second instance, the TCS issued a command it never should have sent once a train was “in the plant” (the turnout) to reverse.
This is very much like the error that occurred a few weeks ago at CID. Once could be classified as a “weird one-off, but two is a pattern that needs serious investigation.
The second version could have caused the incident at CID.
Software Error!
It’ll be fixed in the next release.
Do you know this, or is it a joke? If so (and I personally do like jokes, but ST may not), it’d be a good idea to use a snark “tag”.
Pretty obvious a snark. But for real I’ve notice recently crossing the tracks that the flange depth seems to be really shallow. The depth at the pedestrian crossing look to be about 2″ or less; barely the radius on the top of the rail. There’s a 90 degree angle at the bottom turned so that the deepest part is away from the contact area on the rail. And these grooves on East Link are already filling up with debris. Having looked a many heavy rail wheels I think they have much deeper flanges. This is probably standard for light rail systems around the world but it doesn’t make me feel any safer going over the alligator pit at Mercer Slew. I guess the drop will kill me before the gators get to my body >/snark< ;-)
Well, all of us armchair experts won’t know anything until Sound Transit releases the details.
Since my work history includes 23 years in the IT field, my default is to always Blame The Computer.
Yes, it’s a joke.
We can speculate on a number of scenarios:
The operator ran through a switch that wasn’t aligned yet, possibly bending connecting hardware.
If they were coming from upstream of the points of the switch they train can safely make it through the switch.
However, if any damage occured to the hardware, that might be the reason for the “split switch” explanation.
However, other possibilities exist, as you’ve described.
I’m sure my friends at ST will survive my giving them a bit of ribbing.
I await their report, and will trust they will implement the procedures needed.
Another update for the Rule Book.
These situations are where experienced operators can have a positive effect by sensing when something just doesn’t feel right, and taking/not taking action.
Jim, normally when a train runs through a switch set against the movement from the frog side, it bends the points or tears them off the cross-bar that moves them. My understanding is, that’s not a “split switch”, but maybe the terminology has changed or for freight rails its different than from passenger rails.
OK, Gemini says that running through a trailing point switch set against the movement is also called “splitting a switch”, so that might be what happened this time. It is very hard on the switch machine, often “breaking” it by pulling the points from the cross-bar.
Ah, the joys of railroad jargon.
Whatever happens to the mechanism would depend on the construction, I suppose.
I’ve seen a “bent” works situation, which was temporarily dealt with by spiking the switch lined for one platform. (Stub tracks with manual switch stands)
RE RV Restrictions article:
The RV restrictions pose an interesting challenge. I get how they are intrusive when parked on streets for weeks at a time as they house someone in them. Nearby residents and businesses do not know who is inside them.
On the other hand, I would much rather that people are living in a sheltered unit like an RV as opposed to camped out on the streets. At least they can lock the door and have their own restroom facilities.
The ones I’ve seen in the past not far from where I live have resulted in the occupants using the RV as a way to create a tent city adjacent to it.
Yet I know people who own RVs and live in Seattle that sometimes need them to sit on the street.
And I’ve met people who have lived in RVs when they were between apartments who are great people that merely had a gap in their housing setup for whatever reason. And others who have met guests reside in their RVs for several days.
It’s going to take some creative approaches to regulate RVs as temporary housing. Certainly, they should not be parked in places where streets are too narrow or have sight distance issues or a parking shortage. But if an occupant can safely verifiably live in an RV, why not?
Yeah, I don’t see how you can restrict it. If you kick them out of RVs, the alternative is going to be worse.
Why do we assume RVs are temporary housing? If they were moved to an RV park when purchased, and the RV park is closed to build a new highway or train line, what do we expect the owner/occupant to do?
Just realized 220 will take Main St rather than NE 4th St. That is consistent with what was proposed for K Line which will probably replace 220 when that RapidRide open.
I wonder how much faster it will be this way compared to 271.
The tradeoff, of course, is coverage. It leaves the retail at 4th/116th without direct bus service. There are ways to get there with a bit of walking, 220 to Main St., or Link or B-line to Wilburton Station. But, clearly, Metro does not see this area as a significant transit destination, in spite of the fact that it’s a huge driving destination.
I guess there’s something to be said that a person without a car is more likely to order merchandise online and have it delivered than physically travel to the store to shop. But, I’m entire comfortable with the idea of enumerating specific destinations that transit is supposed to be “for”, and saying you’re supposed to go buy a car to go anywhere else. While the walk may be easily good enough for employees of the stores commuting to work, people who are shopping and have bags of groceries to carry may want better, and the transit system (ignoring BellHop, which is too unreliable to count) isn’t providing it.
There is also not much to cover on the route via Main St.
Part of the problem is that the city of Bellevue is completely unwilling to do anything to reduce car volume. In fact, they have consistently done everything they can to increase car volume. 4th is connected to 405, so there will be a large number of cars slowing down the buses, and Metro would be best to avoid it.
The funny thing is that, on paper, walking there from Downtown Bellevue Station is fine. It’s about the same distance as from Wilburton Station. But I’ve done it, and it’s just a miserable experience walking over 405 with all the noise and pollution.
Isn’t there going to be a high-class pedestrian walkway next to the HOV ramp? Maybe the STRides could have a stop at the T-intersection with a connection to the walkway.
That’s pretty close.
There were several coverage choices made during the East Link Connections project. Were they explicitly explained to the Council, riders, and cities? They included 116th Avenue NE, Richard’s Road, Somerset, Medina, parts of Bel-Red, east Bellevue served by the jogs of routes 226 and 249, Woodridge, east part of Eastgate Way. Adding MetroFlex atop local routes is odd. Converting Route 249 to serve Beaux Arts was odd as 108th Avenue SE would work well. For several years, I used Route 271 to 116th Avenue to reach a meeting east on Main Street; there is employment nearby and there were always others alighting.
I wonder if the lime-scooter rider ran a red or was in the right-of-way. Doesn’t help the teen driver drove off but he won’t be charged with a hit-and-run because he returned to the scene.
According to this, RapidRide I will upgrade TSP for Intersection of SW 7th at Shattuck.
According to this article from 2024, new Renton Transit Center will open an intersection at Rainier & Hardie, so what’s the point of routing I Line to SW 7th and propose bunch of improvement there? Is this another example of poor coordination between Metro and Sound Transit?
The City of Everett and Community Transit have released a proposed framework for consolidation. The project page has information, an online survey, and an open house August 19th. Give feedback by September 2nd.
The framework will continue Everett Transit’s existing routes for 12-24 months, while developing a plan to allocate a 50% increase in service hours in the 2028-2031 timeframe, in conjunction with the Swift Gold rollout, and introducing ZIp demand-response shuttles to Everett (as exists in the Alderwood Mall area and three exurban areas).
The open house is at the Walter Hall Golf Course Banquet Room on Casino Road. Is that a reasonable place to get to on transit?
The link was bad (maybe cuz the “http”?). Here’s a correction: https://www.everettwa.gov/2786/46858/Transit-Consolidation
I recall yeeeears ago when Metro wanted to restructure the U-Dist routes for UW Link, they held the meeting at a location where bus service ended right after the meeting began. I have no clue why ET didn’t simply schedule the meeting at Everett Station.
A consolidated transit agency in Snohomish County will be a game-changer. No more ridiculous invisible boundary that CT has to go around. What a antiquated mindset..
It makes sense that service in Everett increase substantially when their sales tax rate and fares will go up to match Community Transit’s.
There is also the improvement for paratransit riders, who will be able to pay using ORCA accounts, and have more direct rides. I am hoping the paratransit sub-agencies put their heads together and establish a uniform fare (e.g. $2 even) and day pass (e.g. $4 for paratransit) throughout the ORCA Pod. CT’s paratransit fare is $2.50, while other agencies charge $1.75 to $2.
RRFP holders riding ET buses will also see their fares double from 50 cents to $1.
Fort Lawton is about the last place I would want to put housing. Anyone living there will require a car to do anything.
It would be far better to upzone McGraw Street and 34th Avenue – where all the retail is – and put more housing there.
Why not both?
Housing in both magnolia and aurora is the correct response, both on a policy terms and as a nimby defense.
Fort Lawton is directly served by the 33, a short walk to the 24, and a long walk to the 44 (over the locks). It’s a 15 minute walk to the Metropolitan Market on 34th and it’s essentially in one of the best parks in the city. It’s a bit far to the nearest elementary school (25 minute walk), but that’s served by the 33.
In terms of transit access, I’d vastly prefer having both the 24 and 33 within a 5-ish minute walk rather than having the 33 be about 15 minutes like it is at 34th and McGraw. Plus, Fort Lawton is closer to downtown on the 24 than 34th/McGraw. And I’d rather be a 15 minute walk to the 44 than be directly served by the 31 (though I don’t mind a walk).
Is it the best place in the entire city to put housing? I don’t know, but it seems totally fine to me. I wouldn’t personally live in Magnolia, but if I wanted to, Fort Lawton would be a fairly good option for getting around on the bus.
I don’t think Fort Lawton is a bad location. It’s not ideal within the existing transit network, but it’s also not terrible and it’s a fairly logical endpoint for a route through Magnolia into Seattle. The 33 already ends there and with a bit more density it could probably get upgraded to a more frequent route.
I’d like to see a larger upzone at 34th/Government. It’s a desirable place to live and there’s a decent amount of retail/housing there already.
I would also like to see the 31 go there too. It’s a lot easier to live without a car if you can ride a bus to the east, rather than just south to downtown. The 31 could still serve Magnolia Village, following the path of the 24 (without the West Viewmont tail).
Moving the 31 would also make it easier to access Discovery Park from Fremont, UW, and Wallingford.
The existing routing of the 31 seems fine, it could just extend directly to Discovery Park? It would be a little loopy but not terribly bad.
It is just low-hanging fruit for city to go after because it is completely free land to grab, but its location is not great. It is the kind of place you put senior living housings there.
It is a bit of stretch for the study to count any service that is located in Ballard just because it is within certain radius. Ballard is very inaccessible from that part of Magnolia in reality. Ballard Lock is packed with foot traffic and it only opens 7 am to 9 pm. There is tons of elevation gain through this canal crossing and you cannot ride bike there. You have to walk it, which make it even slower than walking. Just imagine carrying grocery through there and then walking through steep slope would give me a headache. Fort Lawton is so deep inside Magnolia that it takes 15-20 minutes to just reach Interbay by bus. The closest grocery store is Metropolitan Market, which is not exactly affordable service location and doesn’t give you everything you need if you are on certain budget. That’s the case for many service in the area. Yet the city consider there is adequate existing service in the area.
I requested transportation Appendix of that when I heard about the project.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1td47hfbNO-095lK82aHlsNSAgc_EJGnF/view?usp=sharing
The study recognizes the traffic impact this housing development site will create, but propose nothing.
I generally understand that city wouldn’t be much of cheerleader for capacity adding or anything that only helps driving, but how about some level commitment that benefit all modes such as better bus to that POI, or replacement plan for Magnolia Bridge with more specific timeline. Nope, nothing.
I think it is just very irresponsible to put an affordable housing site there without committing any resource to it. I still think empty office and retail buildings are better affordable housing site candidate than Fort Lawton. Maybe there is a need for more family-oriented type of housing in Fort Lawton, but there needs to be more compatible service to that site in order to make it work, that includes a budget grocery store within walking distance, a Route 33 with better frequency and service span.
If you limit affordable housing to a budget grocery store within walking distance, you will essentially eliminate the entire city. Metropolitan Market may not be a budget grocery store, but it’s got to be cheaper than the Hilltop Red Apple across the street from Beacon Hill Station (I just looked and a loaf of Grand Central Como bread is ~$1 cheaper at MM than that Red Apple).
If affordable housing (or really just denser housing) is built at Fort Lawton, there will be good reason to run the 33 more often. Relative to the rest of Magnolia, it’s in almost the best possible location – the only place unambiguously better for transit is the Government Way/34th area where the 24 and 33 intersect. And yeah, the walk across the locks isn’t the world’s most convenient walk and is absolutely not accessible, but it’s still noteworthy to be close to the end of the 44. It would make a transit commute to UW possible – something that matters a lot.
There are no perfect locations for any development – the question should be is this one good enough. I think it is – two buses within a short walk, and one a bit of a stretch walk but still doable.
No, my point is the study didn’t recognize the limitation of existing condition in the area. It should recognize that there is a limitation of available service available to this development.
“the walk across the locks isn’t the world’s most convenient walk and is absolutely not accessible, but it’s still noteworthy to be close to the end of the 44.”
It does feel this way and I’ve tried a few times only to find out 44 is never faster than 33-31. From Fort Lawton, taking 33-31 will probably be 15-20 minutes faster than walking to Ballard to take 44 because it is just difficult to speed up.
“I just looked and a loaf of Grand Central Como bread is ~$1 cheaper at MM than that Red Apple)”
I’ve noticed that Metropolitan Market tends to have better price on certain stuff such as milk from Darigold and coffee beans from Vita, but in general it is expensive to buy produce from there. I think it is a lot more expensive than Wholefoods and slightly cheaper than PCC.
I should probably mention that there is also an Abertsons in Magnolia a few blocks north of Magnolia Village. The distance from that store to Fort Lawton is a little bit awkward by Route 24 because you need to walk quite a bit to get to stop on both ends. Biking is probably a good option besides driving. It will be better if there is bike lane along 34th. That’s the kind of thing I was looking for out of that report.
Fort Lawton is a bad location for a supportive and affordable housing development. Ideally, it should be in or next to walkable residential/commercial neighborhoods, and in close proximity to frequent transit. Fort Lawton doesn’t have that. And on snow days, access to transit gets much worse. Housing like this does have to be built somewhere, but that doesn’t mean every location where it is built is a good location.
Fort Lawton is pretty close to a walkable neighborhood, and while the 33 isn’t frequent, it’s close enough to the 24 that the 24/33 can at least be close. Granted, the 24/33 pair could certainly use some improvements but that’s pretty easy to do (and worthwhile regardless). Affordable housing should be in every neighborhood – including rich ones like Magnolia.
I think a well-designed housing development adjacent to one of the largest parks in Seattle would be desirable to live in. And I don’t think it’s fair to say “not here” when it’s (to my eye) clearly good enough for the future residents.
It’s half an hour walk to get to the 44 from where this development is proposed, because the hill prevents any direct through pedestrian route. I’ve done it once, and it’s an undertaking.
I’m not saying it shouldn’t be built, but I don’t think the difficulty of living in this location, while attempting to get around on transit, should be ignored either.
Fort Lawton just needs one more meeting for Yimbies to show up in force, and be told the same excuses yet again, such as that it is impossible to increase service on the local bus routes, but also that increasing bus service is an unacceptable impingement on car traffic. Enough is enough! How has Fort Lawton become the multi-generational Missing Link of affordable housing?
What is Magnolia service was restructured and more trips began and ended at the Route 33 terminal on Texas?
An alternative housing site is being studied just south of North 130th Street near the E line. The Metro service on North 130th Street to/from the Pinehurst station needs improvement; Route 77 is inadequate.
The more I look at the Fort Lawton proposal the less I hate it. When I think of Fort Lawton I think of the area up on the bluff (where the old military housing was). Some of the soldiers had million-dollar views (before they were sent off to who knows where). My initial thought is that the land must be worth a fortune. The best option is to upzone and sell it off. Use that money to buy more affordable housing in cheaper areas. Not dirt cheap, but more middle class (for Seattle). But then I looked at the actual property. Here is a nice map on Redfin of the area. There are a few things that are interesting:
1) This is not a hugely expensive area. From what I can tell, this is essentially middle class housing (for Seattle). There are some very expensive view houses nearby but there are also some more affordable condos as well. Those who are fans of Discovery Park may find this odd. But like most of Seattle there are big trade-offs to living there. It is very inconvenient to get anywhere, especially if you plan on driving on the freeway.
2) The 33 runs right by there. The 33 only runs every half hour but I consider it a “borderline” bus. With a little bit more money (or a good restructure) it should run every fifteen minutes. Just this development might put it over the top. It would be nice if the 33 served more grocery stores but it is quite likely that will be the case in the long run. The Magnolia Bridge is going away. The buses will converge onto Dravus, where there is a QFC. As of now riders would have to transfer to get to the Albertson’s but if they ran the buses more often (and/or timed them) then that isn’t a crazy idea. Again, that might happen someday, with a restructure.
3) It isn’t great for amenities but it isn’t that bad, either. It is about a 20 minute walk to the nearest big grocery store. I’ve lived in worse (without a car). It is an OK bike ride but a bit hilly.
4) Pedestrian infrastructure is pretty good and it wouldn’t take much to make it better. The main thing that is needed is to get rid of the fencing and improve egress. Texas Way has sidewalks while 36th has sidewalks south of Lawton. Assuming there is a good way to get to either street it would be fine for walking.
5) Biking infrastructure is more of a mixed bag. I could see them adding bike lanes to 36th which in turn would slow down drivers. Government Way has bike lanes. 34th does not. Maybe that should be the priority since a lot of people would benefit from bike lanes on both sides.
Even though it feels very different, there is a lot of similarity between this project and the one at Magnuson Park. The nearest grocery store is actually much closer. (The nearest grocery store for those folks is the PCC — that is a really long walk). Transit is much better at Magnuson Park but it is likely it will get a lot better at Fort Lawton in the future. I still wonder if selling off the land for market-rate development could be a better deal but I think it is probably a lot easier to just build what they want to build.
Sticker seen on a utility pole today next to the south entrance of University Village. To keep things civil, I’ll replace the name of the other blog with XXX. “The XXX (then with a red heart symbol underneath) Private Equity. Capitalist rag in a leftist wrapper.” So, I guess it’s saying The XXX loves private equity? I saw it while waiting for a bus to UD Station. You have to be really left wing to think that The XXX isn’t left wing enough.
“you have to be really left wing…”
Seattle is no Stranger to that line of thinking!
[Ed. Changed formatting because WordPress either doesn’t accept blockquote tags or it was misformed. -MO]
Clever Bernie.
Anyway, I don’t know why Sam is so afraid to mention the newspaper/blog. The Stranger got sold a couple years ago. Some figured they were “selling out” while others figured it didn’t really matter. Or at the very least they would wait and see what happens.
Now there is sharp criticism because of their most recent endorsements. It is worth noting that their endorsement is extremely powerful, especially in the primary. It extremely rare to make it to the general without an endorsement from either them or the Seattle Times. It can be argued that they simply endorse strong, left-leaning candidates (i. e. candidates that would have made it to the general without their endorsement) but I disagree. I think there have been several cases — especially recently — where they endorsed someone who otherwise would have gone nowhere (only to be crushed in the general election by the more conservative candidate).
Which brings us to the latest round of endorsement. A lot of eyebrows were raised in several of the elections. Many were shocked that Ron Davis didn’t get the endorsement in the 46th District. Davis was enthusiastically endorsed by The Stranger when he ran for city council last time. Davis barely lost in an election that was noted for its reactionary tone. Davis was endorsed by the mayor as well as The Urbanist. So it seems bizarre that they would endorse someone like Dreyer, who seems no more likely to win the race or be more progressive.
Then you have this Reddit discussion. I agree with a lot of those comments. The Stranger rarely covers anything news related. Consider the recent snafu with the head of the police. The Seattle Times runs a story about how he was popular with African American groups. Danny Westneat does his usual “What is going on here?” shtick. Erica Barnes writes a series of articles (starting with this one) that not only detail the issues with the former chief but also explain why no one is willing to talk about it (Wilson signed a binding settlement with Barnes that almost certainly includes a mutual nondisparagement clause). So, that’s what is going on Danny. The mayor can’t talk about all the issues she had with the guy, otherwise she would be sued. Anyway, it is a great article and there have been several more about the subject. What does The Stranger have to say about it? Basically nothing. They really don’t do any real reporting any more. They have a morning update (which is essentially just a summary of the daily news) and a lot of articles about restaurants and music. Their coverage of city hall seems superficial, with little insight. So why the hell should we trust their endorsements?
I wondered why Sam bothered. Who cares or believes what ultra-leftists put on fliers? I stopped reading The Stranger when the print edition ended; now that it has started again I started reading it when I see it available, except I rarely see it. But every election I read The Stranger’s election endorsements and compare them to The Seattle Times, STB, and any other interesting sources.
I used to vote The Stranger’s slate of endorsements pretty much wholesale, but that ended in the 2000s when The Stranger convinced me to not vote for Nickels’s reelection in the primary, thinking he’d be sure to get the other slot and another chance, but too many people did and he was out. Something good came out of that, since we got McGinn, but still, Nickels deserved to stay in office: the argument that he was inadequate for the snowpocopypse put unrealistic demands on a mayor. That made me leery of accepting The Stranger’s endorsements without further scrutiny.
But still, The Stranger does one of the best jobs in town of interviewing the candidates and presenting them in a comprehensive way, and some of its criteria and judgments are sound, so I still read them.
In the mid 2010s The Stranger went even more lefty, and STB endorsed the best candidate for transit/urbanism while The Stranger endorsed somebody woke who was not as good on transit or sometimes counterproductive, so I went with the transit guy or gal.
This year I didn’t notice any departure from The Stranger’s ultra-left viewpoint. I did notice The Stranger and the Times agreeing on a couple races, and for good reasons, but that’s not uncommon. So if The Stranger’s Election Control Board and editorial position is becoming more centrist or it’s becoming a shill of developers and billionaires, I haven’t noticed it yet.
I looked up splitting the switch. “Splitting the switch” on a railroad happens when a train moves through a switch (turnout) in a trailing-point direction and the wheel flanges force the movable switch points open against their locked setting. This causes different trucks (wheelsets) of a railcar or locomotive to head down separate tracks, frequently resulting in a major derailment.” AI summary.
I’m pretty sure that in the derailment a week and a half ago at IDS, some wheels followed the turnback track, and some wheels followed the southbound mainline track, and derailed off of both.
The AI is a bit confused about the movement in a “trailing-point direction” (i.e. from the frog side). Heading that direction cannot send one truck down one path and another truck doen the other. The train is heading from the two-direction side of the switch toward the single direction side. For the trucks to take different directions, the car/train has to be moving from the single-path side toward the two paths.
That said, your conclusion about the CID derailment is absolutely correct. The turnout was thrown while a train was passing through it, which in a modern TCS should be forbidden by the software. Some failure in notifying the TCS of the train’s position must have occurred.
The July Link boardings are published.
There were five stations with over 10K boardings for an average weekday — U District (10.9K), Capitol Hill (10.9K), Westlake (18.8K), ID/C (12.2K) and SeaTac (10.9K). Four more — Northgate, UW, Symphony and Pioneer Square — had between 7K-10K.
There was just one station with less than 1K — East Main. Six more had less than 2K — Overlake Village, BelRed, Spring District, Wilburton, Star Lake and KDM.
Keep in mind that it’s just Link boardings so total station activity is about double the boardings.
For top days, July 6 had 312.7K Link riders and July 1 had 247.5K Link riders. Most weekdays were 170K-180K system boardings. The bottom weekday was July 9 with just 92.9K Link boardings — illustrating the impact of service disruptions (the train roof hatch damage disruption day).
Yep, that’s why I call it East of Nowhere. Unless there is a significant change in land use around the station there never will be any ridership. I guess some of the bus reroutes to use Main instead of NE 4th might get a few more riders. The real stinger is this station exists only because the City Council at the time insisted on the DT Bellevue Bypass Tunnel. Thank you Claudia et al.
Not surprised at any of these except Bel-Red. I guess middle of the day it get’s nothing since it is a P&R and a commuter stop for the nearby apartments and a few low count businesses nearby. It’s pretty busy though in the mornings and afternoon commutes and a great option for events in DT Bellevue or Seattle. I’m sure it will be packed on Seahawk Sundays. It’s actually starting to get near capacity on regular weekdays which is a bit of a surprise to me.
Overlake Village will increase when all the Borg Cubes in the vicinity start to populate. Most are still empty and the high $$$ ground floor retail is empty now. Spring District is waiting for all the office towers to become populated… that might be years. Or, Amazon could flip a switch and it becomes a major hub tomorrow.
Wilbuton isn’t as pathetic as it was… but still pretty pathetic. I’m starting to see more people from Overlake using it. Once a week or so I have the chance to watch the crosswalk at the exit from Overlake. Most people are headed to the employee parking garage on the east side of 116th. But there’s starting to be a few that are headed either to RR-B or Link. It’s maybe up from zero to 5-10%. The big numbers won’t happen until Wilburton develops which is 10-20 years down the tracks. Improved connection to RR-B may help a little but so far transfers are approaching zero.
Thanks for the info, I was wondering when we’d see numbers. A link to where you found the report?
https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership
@Al, Thanks for the Link!
I’m undoubtedly just stupid but the interface doesn’t let me just list boarding by station (for multiple stations).
It is sort of cool when you click through the different stations to see the bar graphs. They coincide exactly with what I’ve observed IRL. My home station up 9% in July. This is after the WC boost which I think is partially responsible for people discovering how useful Link really is.
DT Redmond is flat to decreasing. That’s a bit of a surprise. Especially since I’m seeing more people on the EB trains while waiting for my WB train to Judkins Park. Must be more M$FT people headed toward their home world.
East Main was 942. Wilburton was next at 1.014. The other three in Bellevue were between 1,212 and 1,412. 1412. The two in Kent were both above 1,800.
The two in Kent were both above 1,800.
Which is more than a lot of people expected. There seems to be a low ceiling but a high basement with the stations that are centered around park and rides. By that I mean you can’t expect most of them to get a lot of walk-up riders. There just isn’t much development so close to the freeway. There aren’t a lot of spontaneous trips, either. It is basically like commuter rail (but a lot more expensive). You drive, park and ride the train. But like commuter rail, ridership is not that good but not terrible either.
Of course some of the stations make up for their apparent weakness with a lot of feeder buses. But Wilburton and East Main really aren’t good with any of those options. That could change over time but I’m not holding my breath.
Is there more than one Link station in Kent? Or are you counting Kent Sounder station?
The large parking structures provide a bit of a guaranteed minimum ridership at KDM and Star Lake. There is also some SeaTac drop off and pick up avoidance (SeaTac curbside traffic hassles are epic) probably going on too. ST should budget a mode of access survey and report to use when managing station access and planning for the future. Without it, we can only speculate what’s going on.
The KDM area has lots of TOD potential and it’s summer so the college isn’t that busy in July. It has more bus route connections too. I expect it will easily grow above 2K by October and even reach 3K within a few years.
Star Lake doesn’t have these things going on. Expecting that ridership to grow significantly looks less likely to me.
@ Mike:
Both KDM and Star Lake are within the City of Kent’s legal boundaries. They’re just literally right at the edge.
Al’s right about K-DM Station. Ridership is going to grow as the neighborhood fills up.
There is a great opportunity there for a bus- and pedestrian/bike-only bridge at 240th across the freeway to free buses from the mess at K-DM Road interchange. To the east of the bridge it would NOT use 240th through the houses, but instead have a new bus-only roadway built alongside the K-DM northbound off-ramp down to the little motel on Military Road and use its access road to get on Military.
The bike and pedestrian way would use 240th to get over to Military Road.
To access this new pathway, take the striped “median” just to the east of Military in K-DM Road to create a second, bus-only left turn pocket and use the shoulder on Military for the short block south of K-DM as a bus lane to the motel access road. This would probably save five minutes per run for whatever Rapid Ride eventually connects Kent Downtown to downtown Des Moines. The current path requires buses to pass through the mess at the freeway, then turn left at PHS, and turn left again at 236th to get to the platforms adjacent the Link station.
The bus could also use the turnaround loop at K-DM Station, return to 240th, cross PHS and use 240th over to 16th South to get back up to K-DM Road. This does move the stops for Highline College down to 240th, but the campus lies between 236th (College Way) and 240th. Overall, between 16th South and K-DM Road it’s a bit shorter
Eastbound buses would follow the 16th South to South 240th path to the Link station and would use the turnaround loop to return to 240th in order to cross the freeway as well. At Military Road the eastbounds could have a single lane flyover built to cross Military, and use the little stub road to the east of Military to approach K-DM for a merge move.
This would not save as much time eastbound as the westbound route, but would be on the order of three minutes per run at least, just avoiding the traffic around the interchange.
As a final note: there should be a pedestrian bridge across PHS at 236th/College Way. That is an enormous highway to walk across.
“Yep, that’s why I call it East of Nowhere. Unless there is a significant change in land use around the station there never will be any ridership. ”
Least Main?
There are supposed to be 6 buildings over 20 floors eat across 112th in the future. And the new state density law may undermine the Surrey Downs NIMBYs.
I like it! I’ll use that from now on. I only wish I could link credit to you so you’d get the royalty remittance ;-) The thing with the name “East” is that Main runs east/west and “East” on the county grid means you are east of the County dividing point, which everything in Bellevue is. But it you narrow it down to just the City of Bellevue then East Main would be after the gap meaning Samamish HS to Crossroads, not DT.
The zoned (not planned) development there is decades away. I originally thought that being in the Hotel District it would get some ridership but hotels like this have suffered big time since the pandemic severely curtailed business travel. I had suggested “Old Main” as a name but it’s really too far and down the hill from what’s happening on Main which is becoming unrecognizable from Old Bellevue anyway. Any “character” it once had a chance of capitalizing on is long gone and the “Grand Connection” has passed it by. Doomed to become more sole-less office and mixed use “transition” to single family.
I actually think that East Main is a horrible name! It implies that there is a West Main Station and/or it implies there is a city named Main. And it’s sure to get confused with Eastgate if 4 Line ever opens. Maybe East Tacoma too.
It’s going to have to wait until there are more buildings built before it gains ridership.
And it may not be “least” for long. Pinehurst looks like it may take the title away later this year.
Is there an East Seattle?
Does anyone know when the old Sheraton site, kitty corner from East Main, will begin construction? Is that also years away?
According to the COB “Building Bellevue” GIS map:
Project name: Belle Vista
Address: 100 112th Ave NE
Permit number: 26-103995 LD
Permit type: Design Review
Decision Published
The decision on a land use action has been reached and the 14-day appeal period has started.
There is no project yet planned for this site. The first step is to ask for the maximum upzone you can get before spending money on architects.
I was able to get as far as tracking the permit number at MyBuildingPermit.com but can’t find out what the decision was on the land use. Right now it’s shown as DT-OLB-S. That’s Downtown Office Limited Business use. The S stands for South. I suspect they want the zoning changed to DT-MU or Downtown Mixed Use so they can build a mixed use building with ground floor retail and 5-7 stories of apartments or condos above. OLB is described as:
So I’m not clear on the difference. Somewhere I thought the OLB was limited to hotels with regard to any residential. Anyway, no project in the works at this point so many years before it becomes anything other than a vacant lot.
“Is there an East Seattle?”
I use it as an informal name for everything east of Broadway or I-5 between the Ship Canal and Yesler Way. The Central District is only part of that. And SPD has an East Precinct. There’s no formal East Seattle beyond that.
Isn’t Bellevue “East Seattle”?
I know that would cause an epidemic of bruxism among the Illuminati of the city were it to be so referenced.
East Seattle is technically on Mercer Island :) It’s the little part in the northwest that has the traditional grid
Years ago, I expected the station to be named Surrey Downs. Doing some web searches I see that there could have been other names like Sturtevant Creek or the native Sa’tsakal. Even Bellefields may have worked.
Regardless, it is what it is and I fully expect it to change at some point in the next 20 years.
“East Seattle is technically on Mercer Island :) It’s the little part in the northwest that has the traditional grid”
I was going to say, in an alternate universe I could see Mercer Island called “East Seattle”. I may have seen that neighborhood on a map and unconsciously remembered it.
I’ve never heard of the Eastside called East Seattle. Some visitors might say it. They’re probably vague on whether West Seattle is a separate city, and thinking there might be an East Seattle counterpart.
Growing up in Bellevue I always thought of that as the Eastside. But in high school we had Junior State club exchanges with a club in Spokane, and they used “east side” for Eastern Washington, so we had to disentangle the two east sides a bit.
There was an early 20th century plan for Seattle to annex Mercer Island and turn the whole thing into a park. Too bad it didn’t happen.
East Main isn’t that remote. There are parts of downtown Bellevue where the walking distance is similar to downtown Bellevue station. But, I suspect a lot of people haven’t figure that out yet because the station doesn’t have the words “downtown Bellevue” in the name.
Which is to say really bad since the DT station had to be located so far east to accommodate the DT Bellevue Bypass Tunnel. But Least Main is worse because it’s a much steeper grade up to anywhere (mostly nowhere) and it doesn’t have the pedestrian connections DT has (like the scramble on NE 6th) not to mention there isn’t a transit connection in sight. The fact they only built enough pullout for two cars as a pickup point pretty much tells you it was going to be not worth stopping a train for. Think about it this way, if Metro was flush with cash and looking for a place to put a coverage stop (assume East Link doesn’t exist) would this be where they would run a bus route?
East Main isn’t that remote.
Yeah, which is why it is so disappointing. It is close (as the crow flies) to the middle of Downtown Bellevue yet it performs very poorly. This is no surprise. It is what everyone expected. Most riders figure they might as well get off the train at Bellevue Downtown Station. Feeder bus service is minimal. The station is just poorly located.
In contrast, imagine if the station was at Bellevue Way & Main. Suddenly you have a lot more people walking to the station. You are covering areas to the west (away from the freeway) which includes numerous skyscrapers and big apartment buildings. You would improve the network a lot more as well. The buses wouldn’t have to all zig-zag their way to get to the transit center. For example the future 270 could just keep going. Ridership at the station would be much higher while the overall network would be much better.
They really didn’t make many big mistakes with East Link (unlike the rest of the system) but East Main was one of them.
“Feeder bus service is minimal.”
RapidRide K’s routing is a response to that. The 270’s routing is a precusor to RapidRide K’s routing.
There should be better Metro service to the Spring District and 130th Avenue NE stations.
What would you suggest?
Resurrect the 249 from DART to regular route status. Start at Bellevue TC and go to S. Kirkland P&R.
S. Kirkland to Spring District
Spring District to Bel-Red – Spring Blvd – 124th – Northup -130th
Bel-Red to Overlake – Spring Blvd – 132nd – 20th – 140th – 24th
Rinse and repeat.
And/Or
Reroute the 229 to loop thru Bel-Red via 130th – Spring Blvd- 132nd
Bernie, while I haven’t tried to figure out good bus service for Spring District/BelRed, your idea, if I’m understanding it correctly, seems really zig-zaggy. I don’t think it’s necessary to hit all the roads around the two stations … NE Spring Blvd, Northup, 120th, 124th, 130th, 132nd, and Bel-Red Road. Do you really think Bel-Red requires buses on both 130th and 132nd, for example?
Btw, there’s now a large crane either on, or just next to the Belle Vista parcel. And there’s also a large crane halfway up Main Street, between 112th and 110th, on the north side of the street, just across the street from the upper part of East Main. That’s going to be a 351 unit multifamily, called Versant Bellevue.
@Sam, The reason for the zig-zaggy route is that Bel-Red is between Bel-Red Rd and Northup. There’s no transit on Northup/20th which used to be the 249 route. I always wished that it had continued on Northup to S. Kirkland rather than having to transfer IIRC back in to the the 248 or 250 on 116th. One zag that could be eliminated would be to stay on Northup from S. Kirkland and skip Spring District. The ridership numbers confirm this is less used than Bel-Red and from either DT or Bel-Red it’s a quick hop on Link. The thing that’s hard to get to is S. Kirkland and the 255 + other connections.
The 130th-Spring Blvd-132nd loop back to 20th could be eliminated by just staying on Spring Blvd . I forget that goes through now. Actually it angles back to 20th as 136th Place. Stops here would be a good metric of if there ever needs to be an infill station in the actual “Arts District” as opposed to the Auto Service District. OTOH, this routing sort overlaps the coverage area of the 229 leaving 20th with nothing. The 229 could stay on Spring Blvd all the way back to Bel-Red Rd but this would require major road improvements and a new traffic signal just west of 140th which is a very congested intersection.
It’s pretty loopy to directly serve the Village at Overlake Station and the actual Overlake Village Link station. But this area has been built out super dense and the route would give residents a convenient hop to Link and direct service to Safeway and Fred Meyer which is a most unpleasant walk.
Jack has repeatedly suggested moving the 226 from Bel-Red Road to Spring Blvd. That would directly serve BelRed station. The 226 is half-hourly daytime, so the same or better than the 249 would be.
The tradeoff is places on Bel-Red or just south of it would have a longer walk. That was me until 2023, just southeast of 124th & Bel-Red. But there are fewer people near Bel-Red, and they’re closer to RapidRide B on 8th than people on Spring Blvd or 20th/Northup are.
But Spring Blvd is only half baked. The section in front of the Spring District Station only goes as far east as 124th where you’d have to backtrack to Bel-Red Rd. That bus connection at Spring District doesn’t do anything for anyone and just takes longer to get to the same place.
Diverting at 130th to serve Bel-Red Station works. You add not just the extra distance though but two left turns at signals. But it does serve several large new apartment blocks and the Link station. You could stay on Spring Blvd but then you end up back behind the Safeway on 140th and that section of the road is a goat path and there is no signal on Bel-Red Rd. And to add one creates a even bigger mess at Bel-Red and 140th.
So it sort of sucks to add all the time to the 226 when it’s really only a 5 minute walk down to Bel-Red and the bus making the loop would probably add at least that much time.
I’m convinced the best option is to bring back the 249 to create a DT Bellevue – S. Kirkland – Bell-Red Station – Overlake Village/Station route that skips Spring District. and serves 20th/Northup. And drop the tail to S. Bellevue P&R. That’s just dumb.
“The section in front of the Spring District Station only goes as far east as 124th where you’d have to backtrack to Bel-Red Rd.”
Yes, I saw that when I walked from 116th where the 226/250 diverge to 124th where my relative lived. Spring Blvd ends between there and T’s into 12th. Still, it would serve BelRed station.
That would serve me, as I could take the 226 for my current trip pattern from Lake Hills (164th & Main) to BelRed station and transfer to Link to Seattle. I originally envisioned transferring at Overlake Village station, but when the Starter Line opened and I explored the station area on foot, I found that it was a 20-minute walk from the station to the nearest 226 stop (on 24th east of 156th), and a bit uphill too. So that wasn’t worth it. Under duress I took the 550 to Bellevue TC and transferred to the 226 there: the 226 took 40 minutes to meander to Main Street, ugh. Asdf2 suggested taking the 545 to Redmond Tech station, where I could transfer to the 245 and get somewhat to the vicinity of my destination if not as close. So I did that eastbound, although I still took the 226+550 westbound.
Later the Eastgate end of the 226 was extended to South Bellevue station (and straightened out on 164th), so ever since I have been transferring at South Bellevue. But I’d like to have the option of taking the 226 the other way to BelRed station, and then I could do a larger percent of my trip on Link and actually take Link through Bellevue.
Last month I tried walking from the current 226 stop to BelRed station to see what that was really like. It’s a longish but not exactly long walk, and the 226 stops have no shelter or bench if you have to wait there eastbound (or westbound). Still, it’s not pleasant, and a better transfer to Link would be nice.
When I was growing up east of Crossroads, Overlake Village was our closest shopping center (Safeway, Sears, Fred Meyer), so it’s a hub for the eastern Bellevue area. So I always envisioned the people in my former neighborhood could take a bus to Overlake Village and transfer to Link. That hasn’t worked out in reality because the Link station is so far north of 24th (where it should be) and next to 520 (which limits the walkshed), and the closest bus stop from the 164th area is too far away from it. So the next-best transfer point would be BelRed station. Rerouting the 226 to Spring Blvd would turn that transfer from bad to good.
The fact that Spring Blvd has a gap between 130th and 124th that forces buses to detour to Bel-Red or 20th means nothing for east Bellevue, since the existing route is on Bel-Red anyway so there would be no change there. It makes it more problematic for Spring District station (the route would have to go to Spring Blvd twice to reach both stations), but east Bellevue doesn’t care about that; it just wants a transfer to the closest Link station, and then it can reach Bellevue or Seattle or the U-District or Lynnwood or SeaTac or Redmond from there.
The travel time from Main Street to South Bellevue or 130th was about the same, 20 minutes, so it may not matter much from Main Street. Main Street to 130th may even have taken longer, surprisingly, although that was due to traffic congestion and could be improved, and I don’t know whether Spring Blvd would have better travel time than Bel-Red Road or not. But if you’re starting from NE 8th Street or Northup or 24th as I did when I was growing up (I lived off Northup), then the distance to BelRed station is shorter and the distance to South Bellevue station is longer, so in that case a bus stop on Spring Blvd would be even more important and welcome.
Sam wrote:
I think that might be the first phase of this project:
Project name: Broadstone 200
Address: 200 112th Ave NE
Permit number: 24-126003 LD
Permit type: Design Review
Proposed dwelling units: 304
Proposed number of stories: 9
Proposed square footage: 430,254
Proposed square footage retail: 0
Proposed parking square footage: 124,787
Proposed number of parking stalls: 294
Is Link the least reliable train system in existence? Been stopped at Mercer Island for 20 minutes now, apparently the train ahead had to disembark everybody at Judkins, apparently we will have to do the same when we get there. Options are yet unclear.
Transit shouldn’t be a dice roll.
Apparently today it’s another signalling issue. Last week it was a derailed train, week before it was damaged electrical lines. Come on!!
from ST Alerts: “Some 2 Line trains will only operate between Downtown Redmond and Judkins Park until further notice. Please pay attention to train announcements.”
I got off a 1 Line train at 6pm and there wasn’t any disruption announcement. My train was full of soccer fans heading to Lumen Field. Approximately 10 Chivas shirts for every Sounders shirt. I hope everyone gets home expeditiously.
It’s the most unreliable subway I or people I know have encountered. If there is another one that reaches that level, it must be over a century old and have decades of undeferred maintenance. The NYC subway meets both criteria but I haven’t heard of it having this many unplanned outages almost every day for months. Something that equals Link’s unreliability must be in such a little-known city or so small that few people have heard of it.
My guess is the New York City Subway has a lot more outages. It certainly has a lot of delays. But not only is it much older but it is much bigger. It serves way more people. I think if you looked at the portion of riders who are inconvenienced we could be the worst.
Many of the Manhattan trunk line tracks are four tracks — with the same direction tracks adjacent to each other. So it’s easy for train dispatchers to bypass core area disruptions (but not when a switch is involved).
Of course, ST is too damn stupid to lay out their four SODO tracks in this way!
“My guess is the New York City Subway has a lot more outages.”
The NYC subway has an outage somewhere almost every day?
And what do “more delays” mean? When regular service is every 2-5 minutes, does that mean a delay stretches to 10 minutes (a normal Link interval)? Or that it’s out for 30 minutes or an hour or several hours?
Al, the real problem is not the configuration of the four tracks. It’s their existence. Since the RV line is limited to a train every six minutes (except directional service after events) that’s ten trains per hour per direction. West Seattle will NEVER require more than policy headways of ten minutes, so another six trains per hour per direction.
The existing trackway is more than adequate to host sixteen trains per hour per direction between a merge point just south of SoDo and points north. Even if ST persists with the craziness of DSTT2, the northern merge point can be just southof Stadium and use the space occupied by the pocket track for the south-bound line from DSTT2 to ride between the north- and south-bound tracks headed into Stadium. Yes, ST would probably have to raise the profile of the northbound Line 1 track a few feet in order for the rising southbound Line 3 track to clear under it, but that’s a trifle compared to the cost of replicating the trackway and losing the busway.
What this does is allow the abandonment of the Skycastle at Lander Street and instead do some sensible re-configuring of SoDo Station to include a center platform to support in-line and reversing transfers.
As I’ve written often, the northbound Line 3 track would take the bikeway between Spokane and Forest Street, perhaps including the rear few feet of the rainbow roofed building behind Austin Mac and a short section of trench under the rising Line 1 structure at Forest Street.
The merge would occur underneath the new Lander Street overpass, which is planned and budgeted in the current plans. The new trackway north would occupy the existing northbound Line 1 track, and the new combined northbound Lines 1 and 3 track would be where the northbound platform is today. A new platform to the east of the new combined track would be included, to make the transfer between buses and northbound trains quicker. That is the dominant “to work or school” movement at this station, so it should be prioritized.
Yes, this means moving the Seattle City light towers in the vicinity of the modified station, but they have to be moved anyway in order to accommodate the Skycastle.
For southbound riders transferring to the bus I would suggest that a wide underpass be added just south of the platform with ramps up to the center and southbound platform and the northbound busway stop. It might even be extended all the way across the busway and the southbound busway stop moved to north of Lander.
This would EASILY save a billion dollars by avoiding duplication of the trackway and abandoning the Skycastle, and it would have very good transfers at the island platform.
What you say is true, Tom.
I’m focusing on how even when ST wants four tracks, they still lay it out wrong.
They do lay them out inconveniently, that’s for sure. But assuming that there are four tracks, north, north, south, south, how do you run the southbound Line 1 track from the “northeast corner” of the parallel system and exit it to the “southeast corner”?
At the north end I guess you’d extend the tunnel around the curve from DSTT2 to underneath the busway, rise up and then run alongside the southbound Line 3 track. After SoDo, that southbound Line 1 track would rise up and swing over the Line 3 tracks following the profile it does today, but two “lanes” farther west.
The northbound Line 1 track would be where it is now, of course, and would turn east north of Holgate to descend into the new tunnel.
Line 3 would be between the two Line 1 tracks. This makes line switching much easier since the destination track is always directly adjacent.
However it makes reversing transfers between West Seattle and the RV or points south universally terrible. They would always require that schlep up to the cross-track gallery and down to the destination platform. From West Seattle to the RV/South would be Track 2 up and Track 4 down. From RV/South to West Seattle it would be Track 1 up and Track 3 down. The opportunity for a cross-platform transfer between Tracks 2 and 3 would be West Seattle north to West Seattle South. A few people who forgot something at home might use that.
I grant that it would make “in-direction” transfers great, assuming center platforms between Tracks 1 and 2 and between Tracks 3 and 4.
But not building Tracks 3 and 4 would make ALL transfers great, assuming that center platform between Tracks 1 and 2.
Look, I get that in an ideal future there might be a need for “The Bypass” if South King subarea along I-5 south of Sea-Tac turns into a linear city. Then the busway can be taken for The Bypass trains operating south of Sea-Tac, a new tunnel through Downtown (hopefully with a jog up to First Hill) can be dug for the Line 1 trains, and Line 1 trains can turn back at Angle Lake.
But not now and only if Puget Sound turns into LA north because of Climate Change refugees. The capacity is simply not needed in the foreseeable future given current trends.
There are two different kinds of movements: Movements of people and movements of trains.
Movements of people are easiest when everyone can go from one of 16 train doors to the next one of 16 train doors by merely crossing a level platform 20 feet or so. It’s even better when both trains are there at the exact same time so riders from both trains can cross. That’s the limit of having just two tracks and one center platform because everyone has to wait for a same direction train. A rider heading the same direction must step off the train and wait a few minutes for the next one. But at least they only have to walk a few feet.
The three platform layout now preferred by ST makes every rider crowd onto the likely single escalator (and they may be one of a few hundred riders from that train) and then crowd onto a second escalator or maybe just stairs to complete the transfer. This takes a few minutes. We both agree that it’s the most terrible!
ST flatly refuses to change the track layouts despite going through multiple versions of station layouts. There’s a new one just these last few weeks — and yet the track problem never gets addressed.
The ideal fix is quite simple: Inside tracks for West Seattle and outside tracks for Beacon Hill tunnel. Crossover tracks on either side of the station. It’s quite easy. The hardest part is routing the southbound outer track towards the Beacon Hill tunnel — but the track can climb a bit further south and circle back across the OMF to connect to the Beacon Hill tunnel.
ST has also never put an all aerial SODO station option on the table for public debate. There would be no need to build a Lander overpass. The SODO busway could be restored upon completion of the station deck years before opening day.
Recent plans for West Seattle have even shown a tail track north of SODO station. But that tail track is east of both tracks so it’s not clear how that track switching would work.
It’s very frustrating to watch this play out. ST has never shown interest in even contemplating changes to the layout craziness. Yet it keeps beating the “redundancy” drum even though their stubbornness to keep this planned track layout makes any operational redundancy impossible.
I was there a few weeks ago and the train to my hotel was shut down at night so I took the backup train but it wasn’t running either. Thankfully I ran into a friend who told me of a way that I could take a third train, get off, walk up and down 4 flights of stairs to transfer to another.
So NYC definitely has its issues.
For that matter, every time I’ve been to London, a line has been down for one reason or another. And when I was in Paris, there was an emergency line closure that I didn’t understand because I didn’t speak French.
I have been in NYC multiple times when a line was suspended for weekend maintenance. I don’t count that as an outage or delay. NYC has a large maintenance backlog so it’s been doing it on the weekends.
Once I landed in JFK going to Manhattan and the A express was suspended for the weekend, so I took the A local, and it took an hour. The next day I went back to the airport to check on a missing bag, so I had to take the A local twice more.
Another time I was in midtown on 8th going to a nightclub downtown. The train terminated short of that and there was a shuttle bus the rest of the way. This was for maintenance too.
I’ve also seen trains switched to another Manhattan tunnel when one tunnel is closed for maintenance. So a service on 8th would be diverted to Broadway or such south of W 4th Street; I don’t remember exactly. The places I’ve stayed at have mostly been on 8th, so that’s the corridor I’m most familiar with.
I dropped into the Rainier Rapid Ride Open House at the Rainier Beach Library tonight. There was a pretty good crowd and lots of Metro staff positively gushing with enthusiasm. It’s clear that Metro is pretty early in the design process. Questions like “Are there plans to make Mt. Baker Station more usable?” “How often will the RRR run?” “Are there plans to make Jackson Street more fluid?” were answered with vague variations of “We’re looking at different options” or “Nothing definite has been decided.”
At this point, I’m OK with the baseline RRR proposal. Yes, it needs some tweaks (see the thread from earlier this week), but whether or not it succeeds will depend on how the supporting bus lines in Rainier Valley are structured.
I’ll just chime in here with the stop at Charles really needs to stay. That has been a very popular stop for the 5 years I’ve been watching it. Way more use than the Judkins Link Stop. Don’t make people that are already using the 7 make the unpleasant hike down to I-90. I realize that the stops are close as the crow flies but crows don’t ride transit. Deleting a popular stop for an unpopular stop, even if it has a train, is a loser for people actually using this route.
Well said.
I’ll add that the walkshed of the Judkins Park Station stop is basically just the station itself. The walkshed of Charles St has the new apartments and a bouldering gym, plus the neighborhood above. That gas station is prime for redevelopment as well.
And if intelligence ever prevails, they could use the Charles St stops (instead of JPS) for Line 2 shuttles that follow the 554 routing. Just throw up a few signs and have people walk the extra few mins from the station—and heck, half the walk up population to the shuttles would be happier with the change and not having to walk/wait under I-90 for the shuttle (or the RR-R for that matter).
Yeah, walking on the west side of Rainier really sucks. You have two high speed freeway on/off ramps to try and survive. On the east side of Rainier it’s literally a “walk in the Park”. That was really nice during the World Cup. Now the park is becoming a large homeless encampment with people passed out on the path, loads of new garbage daily and confrontations starting to become more frequent (I can watch it from our break room window). Maybe it doesn’t matter what Metro does if Seattle devolves into Mad Max lawlessness. The obvious change in policy during the WC was an eye opener. It’s obvious the “powers that be” want this to happen to promote the homeless industrial complex that feeds their political machine.
I have to admit I was rather disappointed that ST put the platforms much closer to 23rd rather than Rainier at JPStation. The track crossing makes it even more awkward. And the times that I’ve used it, I’ve seen a security guard on the path — as it looks like a good corridor for assaulting a rider. And it’s only partially covered so a user will get wet on the path while the dry, sheltered part of the path looks like a place for vagrants to loiter.
It’s one of those layouts where the design objectives were attained, but the user experience is less than appealing.
And adding fare gates at the Rainier entrances look possible but rather tight. The fare gates could make things feel safer. But I could see how ST would rather put fare gates on the walkway rather than on Rainier.
“And adding fare gates at the Rainier entrances look possible but rather tight. The fare gates could make things feel safer. But I could see how ST would rather put fare gates on the walkway rather than on Rainier.”
Judkins Park station is not on the list for fare gates. Only CID to Northgate is, and five other hub stations.
Metro is planning to keep the stops at Charles, Grand, etc. for the 106, but the RRR won’t be stopping there. The people who live along the north Rainier corridor can take the 106 to downtown (and transfer to another bus if their destination is north of Jackson) or walk to Judkins Park and take the 2 Line.
So, why keep Route 106 on Rainier Avenue South and South Jackson Street? It duplicates the trolleybus routes too much. If it served 23rd Avenue South and Yesler Way, it would serve the better Judkins entrance and provide frequent service to the underserved Yesler Way and Yesler Terrace markets. It could still terminate near IDS. It would serve Jackson Square.
Can we get confirmation on that? Metro should have included it in the description, if not saying the 106 (because it can’t commit to the 106 long-term), at least “another route”, rather than leave several people worrying about apartments near Rainier without bus service.
I’m also wondering about the impact for walking to Goodwill. For a while southbound I got off at Charles, but more recently I’ve gotten off at the previous stop (King?). It’s a few blocks walk either way.
I also know somebody who lives on Dearborn east of Rainier, so I have an indirect interest in that too.
The northbound Dearborn stop is convenient; I’ve used it several times over the years. I’ve long wished there would be a southbound Dearborn stop. The STB article says that’s what Metro intends.
I walk to the Goodwill from the Darigold building about twice a month. It’s more pleasant on the east side of Rainier (relatively speaking, I used to use the ally to the east but sketchy behavior has become a problem). I’m not familiar with the stops between Charles and DT but what if they dropped the “King St” stop and moved the Charles stop north of Charles? I know Metro likes to stop after the signal but this would be stopping after the signal at Dearborn. Then they keep the stop under I-90 but have increased the distance between these two stops.
Does “RRR” equal “R-cubed”? AKA, “The Cube”?
Yesterday at Westlake Station I marveled at how all the Link endpoint directions have “downtown” or “city center” in their name: “Downtown Redmond”, “Federal Way Downtown”, “Lynnwood City Center”. There must be three other cities as large as Seattle.
It’s a byproduct of the station naming circus. ST defers to local city preferences and those cities aren’t happy just using their city names, especially when all three suburban cities will someday have more than one Link station if ST3 reaches buildout.
It’s too bad that there are no Link stations using the word “central” in the name.
And I have never heard locals ever calling 320th a “Downtown” or 46th and 200th a “City Center”. To me, only Redmond has had a long standing “downtown” among the three.
I was recently on Caltrain, where there are stations at over a dozen locally-known “downtowns” yet the term is never used. That’s true even in cities where there are more than one stop. They just use the city name and call it a day.
The ironic thing is, all three were named around the same time. ST could foresee the clash in naming styles, and did nothing to prevent it.
And now we have all these visitors at Westlake thinking: “All these lines go to downtown. I thought this was downtown. Yes, this is downtown, it’s where Pike Place Market is and the financial towers and government towers.”
Have at it horde!
https://www.myballard.com/2026/08/12/save-ballard-rail-pushes-for-2035-light-rail-opening/
First, I personally think that the ST 2042 opening suggestion is a weak attempt intended to placate these Ballard Link supporters — and ST knows that it’s basically lying about this date. Now that the new draft appropriations bill is showing horrific cuts in urban transit capital dollars, it’s even more of a pipe dream.
And this group should first be clamoring for the release of the revised EIS for Ballard! It should have been published by now! Clearly there are reasons why it hasn’t. But taxpayers have paid for this work and deserve to at least see it — and it may reveal things that can inform how to move forward differently .
And even if all the funds were there and an alternative was chosen and a design was finalized, the complexity of tunneling (with station vaults) in just SLU and Seattle Center combined with the final Ship Canal crossing requirements probably mean at least ten years of right of way purchase and demolition/ construction before opening day happens. 2035 appears improbable merely in practical terms.
I’m leery of a longer bond period for something with such wide downtown transfers. When it opens there will probably be complaints saying ST should have made the transfers shorter, and should at least do something to mitigate it now if possible. We’ll be doing the transfers thinking, “We’ll be paying this off for 50-60 more years.”
By the way, I’m opposed to Seattle contributing third-party money to accelerate WS/BLE. The stuff in the Seattle Transit Measure is fine, because that’s just permitting/logistics work the city would do anyway in any Link extension. But I don’t want to see Seattle raising taxes to give to ST for Link construction. If all the funding alternatives for WS/BLE are bad and the implementation will have severe flaws for passengers, I’m satisfied with just letting it take longer to open rather than throwing good money after bad. Let’s put that money into interim bus service, or post-Link bus service to work around those flaws.
In an outcome I have predicted for awhile, West Seattle is pushed to 2035. Of course, ST announces this as they get the committee to agree to give $435M to buy property. This may be the single biggest amount for property acquisition ever given to ST.
SODO busway is on its death bed now.
West Seattle Link just needs to end… now. And the only way to do that is replace the ST CEO. I knew it was a bad choice when it happened and purely based on political favor. The board which is all political cronies isn’t going to make this happen. But King County just can’t vote for anything that doesn’t make them feel warm and fuzzy. And when they did the establishment just kept “recounting” votes until they got the desired result and then stopped (Rossi).
Eh, I asked in an open thread whether ito engage in regime change and install Claudia Balducci. The horde wasn’t interested.
Claudia Badass-ducci is the best qualified of any STB boardmember or executive staff to lead the organization, make strategic decisions on Link’s policies/direction, or head most of the county executive/mayoral/governors’ offices around. But what do you mean by “regime change” and “installing her”? Installing her to what? With authority over what?
Credit for the Badass-ucci moniker goes to “Joe, A 12 for Transit”, a former STB commentator, who more recently has been seen giving public testimony at STB meetings, and introduced the term there.
Balducci seems to care more about the riders than most Board members — whose visions of transit are unrealistic (thinking of lines like highways) and they are easily lobbied by real estate interests and construction and engineering firms.
But what I think is badly needed is seasoned industry hires who know how to manage disruptions and crises, and how to focus their main task to keeping the current system running. They need to hire a CEO and next level from a system that has these common, day-to-day issues. They don’t need to have an attorney who writes contracts for a living. I think that they need to have someone who can even drive a train and ease disruption bottlenecks quickly.
Using this summer as a baseline, any bonuses should be based on same station ridership gains and farebox recovery. Watching Link significantly decrease in farebox recovery is unacceptable given its ridership growth. The Board needs to incentivize keeping disruptions short and avoidable, keeping riders paying the fares and motivating ways to add system riders by guaranteeing a clean and safe and comfortable rider experience. .
Every agenda is about contracting out things. It’s really telling to me that ST doesn’t want to get down to the business of running trains and buses.
Finally, the ST culture needs to offer the public sincere alternatives. ST is planning to spend a whopping $1+B on a bridge design without even considering a design alternative. That’s crazy! That should be open for public debate!
“But what do you mean by “regime change” and “installing her”? Installing her to what? With authority over what?”
I asked the horde if they would support Balducci overthrowing Dow C. The horde basically had no interest because they said Dow would have to serve the board’s interests (rather than his own parochial ones(
“I asked the horde if they would support Balducci overthrowing Dow C.”
I still don’t know what that means. You want Balducci to convince the board to fire Dow now? You wanted to make Balducci win the County Executive race? How would you have achieved that? If you think Balducci should have a different role on the board or committees, then the person you’d have to convince or override to make that happen is Board Chair David Somers (Snohomish County Executive).
Regime change was the term was used in Iran and Iraq meant overthrowing the government and replacing it with a different government. I assume violent or undemocratic means are out, so what else? You could ask the legislature to change the ST board structure to something else, perhaps an elected board. But there’s no guarantee an elected board would be better, or that Balducci would win a seat on it, or that she’d want to give up her King County Councilmember position. The subset of the public who knows what good transit qualifications are and would support good transit candidates are few, fewer than the ones who demand their own parochial interests or unrealistic expectations. Otherwise we would have already won on policy, and Ballard Link would be scheduled first, the bad downtown transfers would have been improved, West Seattle Link and DSTT2 might have been canceled, future lines would be automated, etc.
ST’s announcement says: “We know many people have been eagerly anticipating light rail in West Seattle. We’re committed to delivering the project on a realistic timeline the agency can confidently stand behind.”
“the only way to do that is replace the ST CEO”
The board is now Dow’s boss, so they’re the ones calling the shots. Dow can’t keep up West Seattle Link if the board turns against it. The board’s preference to keep West Seattle Link and make it first is not a courtesy gesture to a former boardmember. It’s because they drank the kool-aid that West Seattle Link is a good idea and will be effective transit for West Seattle.. and now there’s a group of West Seattle activists (since the board retreat) pushing for it to be completed. Mayor Wilson probably sees it as a predecessor’s transit promise she needs to keep, and she may believe it’s effective for transit mobility.
This is not to be confused with the other group of West Seattle activists who don’t want West Seattle Link (“Rethink the Link”), or at least want it scheduled last. But when one West Seattle movement is saying yes and another is saying no, ST probably gives more deference to the one saying yes.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Tacoma Dome Link Extension ends up being the next extension completed first before West Seattle Link is done. Or even parts of the Everett Link Extension, like to Mariner.
That has always been likely. The Tacoma Dome segment is one of the easiest and lowest-cost to construct, in existing public right of way.
Saw bus 4801 pulled over on the road. Didn’t seem to do a run today though, so maybe they’re doing tests.
Like 4700s probably going to be back on the roads soon.
Re the ST Board’s positions, it’s worth taking a step back and asking, why is the board doing what it’s doing? It’s because that’s what their constituents are demanding. The majority feedback they hear from city/county officials and their districts is, “Finish West Seattle ASAP! Finish Ballard ASAP! Finish Everett ASAP! Finish Tacoma Dome ASAP! Finish Issaquah ASAP! Don’t bother changing the design or options; it’s not worth it, would waste valuable time, or increase the risk of delays or non-completion.”
CID may be the primary exception, where activists seem split half and half between ST’s preference (CID/N and CID/S stations) and another alternative (4th Avenue Shallow, 5th Avenue Diagonal). But Wilson and the city councilmembers are siding with ST’s preference (I don’t see them raising concerns/objections), and that pushes it significantly in ST’s preferred alternative’s favor. And if half the activists are saying yes and half no, or a small majority is saying no (against ST’s preferred alternative), ST may prefer to assume the first group represents the greater public because that’s convenient for ST.